con law - ex parte mccardle makes no sense Forum

[shmoo597]

The case makes no sense. There are two acts authorizing habeas petitions for mccardle (1789, 1867). One was repealed (the 1867 one). The other was still valid, and the court says so (the repeal does not "affect the jurisdiction which was previously exercised"). But the court dismissed the case saying they have no jurisdiction.

Any explanation?

[General Tso]

the only thing that matters from that case is that the exceptions clause allows Congress to limit the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction.

[ToTransferOrNot]

The case makes no sense. There are two acts authorizing habeas petitions for mccardle (1789, 1867). One was repealed (the 1867 one). The other was still valid, and the court says so (the repeal does not "affect the jurisdiction which was previously exercised"). But the court dismissed the case saying they have no jurisdiction.

Any explanation?

Read more carefully?

[shmoo597]

Got it - chemerinsky page 159:

"The court in mccardle did not review mccardle's habeas petition under the authority of the 1789 act because he had not pled that act as the basis for federal court jurisdiction and because the court was anxious to avoid ruling on the constitutionality of reconstruction. Moreover, McCardle was not in danger since he had been released from prison and had even resumed writing articles criticizing Reconstruction."

I love erwin.