Ex parte McCardle

Ex parte McCardle (1869) is a United States Supreme Court decision that examines the extent of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to review decisions of lower courts under federal statutory law.

Table of contents

1 Facts 2 Case History 3 Issues 4 Holdings 5 Rationale 6 External link

Facts

During the Civil War Reconstruction, William McCardle, a newspaper publisher and not a member of the military, published some "incendiary" articles. He was jailed by a military commander under a law passed by the United States Congress.

Case History

Mr. McCardle invoked habeas corpus in the Circuit Court of the Southern District of Mississippi. The judge sent him back into custody, finding the military actions legal under Congress's law. He appealed to the Supreme Court under a congressional act of 1867 that allowed federal judges to issue writs of habeas corpus and hear appeals from circuit courts. After the case was argued but before an opinion was delivered, Congress repealed the statute.

Issues

1. Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to hear the case?
2. Was McCardle's imprisonment constitutional?

Holdings

1. No.
2. Not discussed.

Rationale

Durousseau v. The United States held that Congress's affirmative description of certain judicial powers implied a negation of all other powers. Creating such legislation was legitimate under the authority granted them by the United States Constitution.

By repealing the act which granted the Supreme Court authority to hear they case, Congress made a clear statement that they were using this Constitutional authority to remove the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. The court has no choice but to dismiss the case.

External link

• Full text of the decision