A rticle III of the Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the federal government. Notably, it empowers federal courts to hear "cases" and "controversies." Additionally, the Constitution creates a federal judiciary with significant independence, providing federal judges with life tenure and prohibiting diminutions of judges' salaries. The Exceptions Clause in Article III grants Congress the power to make "exceptions" and "regulations" to the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. Congress sometimes exercises this power by "stripping" federal courts of jurisdiction to hear a class of cases. Indeed, Congress has even eliminated a court's jurisdiction to review a particular case in the midst of litigation. More generally, Congress may influence judicial outcomes by amending the substantive law underlying particular litigation of interest to the legislature. These practices have, at times, raised separation-of-powers concerns about whether the legislative branch is impermissibly interfering with the judicial power to resolve cases and controversies independently. Long ago in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court announced that the Constitution, by granting the judicial branch the power to decide "cases" and "controversies," necessarily grants the judiciary the power to "say what the law is." Sometimes butting up against this principle is the understanding that "Congress has the power (within limits) to tell the courts what classes of cases they may decide," as well as to enact legislation that may have an effect on pending cases being adjudicated by the federal courts. This report examines a series of Supreme Court rulings that have considered separation-of-powers-based limitations on the Exceptions Clause, congressional jurisdiction stripping, and the ability of Congress to amend laws with the purpose of directly impacting pending litigation. The Court's jurisprudence in this area largely begins with the Reconstruction-era case United States v. Klein, and culminates in the Court's 2018 ruling, Patchak v. Zinke . In Klein, the Supreme Court generally held that Congress may not, by limiting appellate jurisdiction, dictate a "rule of decision" that undermines the independence of the judiciary. But in the 2016 opinion, Bank Markazi v. Peterson —the Court's penultimate ruling interpreting Klein —the Court seemed to minimize the import of Klein, noting that while Congress cannot invade the judicial role by dictating how courts rule in a particular case, Congress is permitted to amend the substantive law in a manner that may alter the outcome of pending litigation. The Patchak litigation highlighted the potential for tension between the judiciary's and legislature's powers when Congress removes a class of cases from federal jurisdiction in a way that functionally shapes the outcome of pending litigation. Though poised to clarify the limits of Klein when it granted the petition for certiorari in Patchak , ultimately, the Supreme Court issued a fractured 4-2-3 opinion, adding relatively little clarity to this complex area of the law. Although all nine Justices agreed that Congress cannot expressly dictate the outcome of a particular case, a majority of Justices could not agree on when a facially neutral law that functionally ends pending litigation in the favor of one party violates Article III. In Patchak, all the Justices appear to agree that Congress cannot say "In Smith v. Jones, Smith wins."
Article III of the Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the federal government. Notably, it empowers federal courts to hear "cases" and "controversies." The Constitution further creates a federal judiciary with significant independence, providing federal judges with life tenure and prohibiting diminutions of judges' salaries. But the Framers also granted Congress the power to regulate the federal courts in numerous ways. For instance, Article III authorizes Congress to determine what classes of "cases" and "controversies" inferior courts have jurisdiction to review. Additionally, Article III's Exceptions Clause grants Congress the power to make "exceptions" and "regulations" to the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. Congress sometimes exercises this power by "stripping" federal courts of jurisdiction to hear a class of cases. Congress has gone so far as to eliminate a court's jurisdiction to review a particular case in the midst of litigation. More generally, Congress may influence judicial resolutions by amending the substantive law underlying particular litigation of interest to the legislature.
Congress has, at times, used these powers to influence particular judicial outcomes, raising concerns about whether Congress is acting in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers by interfering with the judiciary's power to resolve cases and controversies independently. In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court announced that the Constitution, by granting the judicial branch the power to decide "cases" and "controversies," in turn grants the judiciary the power to "say what the law is." Sometimes competing with this principle is the understanding that the Constitution empowers a democratically elected branch—Congress—to decide what classes of cases the federal courts may review, as well as to enact legislation that courts may need to interpret.
This report highlights a series of Supreme Court rulings that have examined separation-of-powers-based limitations on the Exceptions Clause, congressional jurisdiction stripping, and the ability of Congress to amend laws with the purpose of directly impacting litigation. The Court's jurisprudence largely begins with the Reconstruction-era case, United States v. Klein, and leads to Patchak v. Zinke, from the October 2017 term.
In Klein, the Supreme Court generally held that Congress may not, by limiting appellate jurisdiction, dictate a "rule of decision" that undermines the independence of the judiciary. But in the 2016 opinion Bank Markazi v. Peterson, the Court appeared to minimize Klein's significance, noting that while Congress cannot invade the judicial role by dictating how courts rule in a particular case, Congress has significant authority to amend the substantive law in a manner that may alter the outcome of pending litigation, even if the amendment specifically mentions a particular case. The Patchak litigation highlighted the potential for tension between the judiciary's and legislature's powers when Congress removes a class of cases from federal jurisdiction in a way that impacts pending litigation. The Supreme Court ultimately issued a fractured 4-2-3 opinion, adding little clarity to this complex area of the law. Although nine Justices agreed that Congress cannot dictate the outcome of a particular case, for instance, by enacting a law that says, "In Smith v. Jones, Smith wins," a majority of Justices could not agree on when a facially neutral law that functionally ends pending litigation in the favor of one party violates Article III.