JUDICIAL POWER – ARTICLE III: pages 1-7
Section 1 one SC and inferior lower courts if congress choses
Section 2 judicial power limited by SBJ : scope of jurisdiction
**can eliminate lower court, unsure ab appellate ct jurisdiction [mccardle/ klein] , but def cant
mess with original ct jurisdiction **
Original jurisdiction: limited, only state party and foreign diplomats [ambassadors,
public ministers] & can’t be expanded // only SCOTUS can hear rllllly important cases at
first instance
Appellate jurisdiction: all other cases, can be changed/expanded
oCertain subject matters so states retain their sovereignty: 9 subjects:
1) law and equity under fed law – only fed
2) admiralty and maritime – only fed
3) assortment of state law especially diversity – both state and fed
Bigger portion hear and decide cases and making binding judgments on them, given the law
[take the law that’s given]
Smaller portion judicial review: rules “created” by construing the law when controversies
arise over what has been or has not been done under it
-Why? CUZ CONSTITUTION DOESN’T SAY SCOTUS CAN DECLARE AN ACT OF
CONGRESS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. BUT COURT SAYS YOU CAN:
-Marbury v Madison : [marshall v Jefferson]
oEven tho judiciary act [s 13] says marbury has a remedy via writ of mandamus =
judicial remedy compelling some1 to do a duty obligated 2 do [bc didn’t get
physical commission from adams midnight judge appointments and this
appointment was valid], this original jurisd grant to do so is not constitutional
because its not consistent w/ article III s 2
oArticle III s 2 doesn’t give SCOTUS original jurisdiction over power to issue
writs of mandamus [other “textual” support for judicial review: VI s 2 =
constitution is supreme]
oOnly orig jurisdiction for cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers, etc.
or cases where a state is a party
oCONGRESS CAN ONLY MAKE LAWS THAT AFFECT APPELLATE
JURISDICTION [writs of certiorari = judicial review of lower ct decisions].
oMarbury loses bc no jurisdiction TO HEAR THE CASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Constitution
is supreme and any act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void
-Cooper v Aaron: federal judiciary has final say on const. interp. So every state [and
congress/president kinda too] must follow SCOTUS’ interp even if not a party to case.
oNo question that states are bound to SCOTUS Martin v Hunters Lessee
Why? Cuz SCOTUS HAS APPELLATE POWER TO REVIEW A
STATE COURT DECISION
Textual/formalistic support: Article VI supremacy clause [const/fed
trump state laws = “in pursuance thereof”]: the Constitution, federal
laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority,
constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority
over any conflicting state laws], article III appellate jurisdiction [power
to hear state ct decisions] and §25 judiciary act [SCOTUS has power to
hear state ct decisions under appellate jurisdiction]
1
