mmmnnn wrote:So congress can neither expand nor limit the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction by statute. Congress can limit the Court's appellate jurisidiction, however. Can Congress
expand the Court's appellate jurisdiction?
Congress enacted a statute providing that persons may challenge a state energy law on the ground that it is in conflict with the federal Constitution in either federal or state court. According to this federal statute, any decision by a lower state court upholding a state energy law against a challenge based on the federal Constitution may be appealed directly to the United States Supreme Court. The provisions of this statute that authorize direct United States Supreme Court review of specified decisions rendered by lower state courts are
Constitutional, because congressional control over questions of energy usage is plenary.
Constitutional, because Congress may establish the manner in which the appellate jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court is exercised.
Unconstitutional, because they infringe on the sovereign right of states to have their supreme courts review decisions of their lower state courts.
Unconstitutional, because under Article III of the Constitution the United States Supreme Court does not have authority to review directly decisions of lower state courts.
Answer choice B is correct. The Supreme Court has the power to review state court decisions and statutes to ensure conformity with the U.S. Constitution "and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." The two means of establishing Supreme Court jurisdiction are (i) direct appeal and (ii) certiorari (discretionary review). Answer choice A is incorrect because energy questions do not create a special right. Answer choice C is incorrect because state supreme courts do not have such sovereign rights. The Supreme Court may have the power to review lower state court decisions. Answer choice D is incorrect because Congress can and has eliminated certain types of appeals, pursuant to Article III, Section 2.
Yes, Congress has the power to eliminate appeals, but here they're granting SCOTUS appellate jurisdiction it normally wouldn't have, right?
Giving SCOTUS the ability to hear a case from a particular (Art III or state) court is not an expansion of SCOTUS appellate jurisdiction beyond the ceiling set by Art III. Art III sets the maximum appellate jurisdiction for SCOTUS at "all cases" (that satisfy the other requirements, e.g. subject matter). Congress can limit the courts from which the Court can take appeals, but they're not required to.
And if you want support that this is actually the right answer in the world, historical and modern practice both conform to this understanding. Congress actually has changed the Supreme Court's appellate procedures quite a bit, especially in repeatedly amending the Judiciary Act to broaden the circumstances in which SCOTUS could hear appeals from state supreme court judgments. And keep in mind that, under Article III as currently construed, Congress could eliminate
all federal courts of appeals and make the Supreme Court take appeals directly from the district courts and state courts. (Congress could even eliminate all circuit and district courts and shrink the Supreme Court to one person as justices die off.) And in the modern day SCOTUS sometimes takes a case directly from a district court or a state intermediate court without waiting for the normal levels of appeals to run their course, although this is rare. I think the cell phone search case this term was from an intermediate California court, for example.
The way to distinguish the other question you posed is, in my opinion, that there is no decision being reviewed and this would therefore not be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
I am heart broken to think that I will have to watch those classes again. Does anyone have up to page 49 filled out (of the 54 pages)? I'm on the last class right now 
