Summary:

Ex Parte McCardle was a U.S. Supreme Court case that Congress used its Constitutional power as a prevention of the Supreme Court hearing politically sensitive case in 1869. William McCardle was a newspaper editor who published stories that was viewed as “provocative” towards the Reconstruction laws enacted by the Republican Congress. McCardle was soon sent to jail by a military commander under the Military Reconstruction Act of 1867. McCardle felt as if that was in violation of habeas corpus.The judge disapproved of his beliefs and he was sent back to custody. McCardle took it upon himself to appeal to the Supreme Court to review the case. However, Congress suspended the Court’s jurisdiction.

First Timeline:

Background:

After the Civil War, all the states of the Confederacy was under siege by the Union Army through law of the U. S. Congress. This caused Southern state lines to disappear while Union leadership established military districts to oversee the legal affairs. William McCardle was arrested for a series of articles published in his newspaper about the Union’s efforts in the South. The Union officers did not find any of the descriptions funny; so when McCardle asked to be released, the Union officers wondered how funny it would be if he was denied. It was not clear if they knew Article III, Section 2 which says “the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction and appeal from lower federal courts as Congress may decide to create. This appellate jurisdiction is exceptions Congress Shall make.” However, Congress amended the 1789 Judiciary Act which was the basis for the federal court system and gave the Supreme Court its appellate powers. In addition, the Supreme Court was granted the right to hear habeas corpus cases in February 1867.

In December 1867, McCardle’s case reached the Supreme Court, but more than just hearing the arguments was of concern for Congress repealing the Court’s authority. McCardle’s imprisonment would be irrelevant if Congress repealed. Congress actions would be unconstitutional if designed only for the McCardle case. The McCardle case was the first and only time in American history that Congress used its constitutional power as a prevention of the Supreme Court hearing politically sensitive case.

Procedural History:

February 5, 1867: Habeas Corpus Act enacted. This act of Congress gave habeas jurisdiction to all courts where persons in any case may have had their rights denied or violated.
March 2, 1867: Trial by military commission was authorized under the Reconstruction Act.
October 2 – November 6, 1867: Sometime during this month and four day period, William McCardle published “incendiary” articles that highly criticized Reconstruction laws. This unpopular opposition led to his arrest by a military commander in the state of Mississippi.
November 12, 1867: After being jailed, McCardle sought to petition the Habeas Corpus Act of 1867 in an attempt to report that he was unlawfully imprisoned, and on this day, the federal circuit court of the Southern District of Mississippi issued a writ of habeas corpus.
November 25, 1867: The federal circuit court denied McCardle’s request. However, he was released on a $1,000 bond.
December 23, 1867: William McCardle filed his appeal to the Supreme Court as a result of his denied petition under the Habeas Corpus Act, which had given the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction.
February 17, 1868: Motion to dismiss the appeal for Supreme Court review was denied.
March 9, 1868: The Supreme Court’s hearings on the arguments of McCardle’s appeal during the case, McCardle I came to an end.
March 12, 1868: Congress adopted the Repealer Act that denied the right of any appeal and jurisdiction to the Supreme Court under the Habeas Corpus Act of 1867.
March 25, 1868: President Andrew Johnson vetoed the passage of Congress’ Repealer Act.
March 27, 1868: Congress had overridden the veto by President Johnson.
March 2-4, 9, 1869: Arguments resumed in the case, McCardle II.
April 12, 1869: The Supreme Court announced its long-awaited decision, in which the case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Issues:

Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear the case?
Whether McCardle’s imprisonment violated his Fifth Amendment Due Process rights?

Arguments by Petitioner:

From the petitioner, William McCardle:

Argues that his arrest for publishing libelous and inflammatory articles was false.
Petitioned the Circuit Court asking for a Court Order to be released. Thus the Appeal.
McCardle’s lawyer, Sharkey, said Congress amending the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional because it is only designed to affect his client.

“Ex Parte McCardle – Case Brief Summary.” Lawnix Free Case Briefs RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 July 2016. Available at this link.

Arguments by Respondent:

From the respondent:

On February 5, 1867, Congress amended the Judiciary Act, which enabled the Supreme Court to hear habeas corpus cases.
On March 21, 1868, Congress passed a repeal law. Therefore, when the case came before the court, all that was discussed was the effect of Congressional repeal of the Court’s jurisdiction.
Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution gives Congress authority to restrict the Court’s appellate jurisdiction.

“Ex Parte McCardle – Case Brief Summary.” Lawnix Free Case Briefs RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 July 2016. Available at this link.

Decision:

The Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Article III, Section II of the Constitution states, “In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” Therefore, Congress had the right to suspend the Supreme Court’s ability to hear the case, given the exceptions provided in the Constitution. As a result of the Supreme Court’s inability to review the appeal, whether or not McCardle’s imprisonment violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights is not answerable by the Court.
Majority: Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, joined by Justice Samuel Nelson, Justice Robert Grier, Justice Nathan Clifford, Justice Noah Swayne, Justice Samuel Miller, Justice David Davis and Justice Stephen Field voted that because the “appellate power of the court, in cases of habeas corpus, is denied,” McCardle’s appeal in this case was to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Majority Opinion (Chase):

Justice Salmon Chase wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by Justice Samuel Nelson, Justice Robert Grier, Justice Nathan Clifford, Justice Noah Swayne, Justice Samuel Miller, Justice David Davis and Justice Stephen Field. The opinion held that “the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” They also held that “the judicial power shall extend to all cases in law or equity arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States.” McCardle’s restraint was allegedly unlawful; however, the military commander thought otherwise. Congress had set statues in place to assist with the Civil War Reconstruction Act of 1867, placing military authority over the Confederate states to ensure the laws set in place would be followed. The Supreme Court heard the arguments, but before the case could be ruled, Congress repealed the law which gave the Supreme Court its jurisdiction. Thus the case was dismissed.

Full Text of Opinions:

Significance / Impact:

This case, Ex Parte McCardle, is recorded as the first and only case in history in which Congress utilized its powers to prohibit the Supreme Court of the United States from hearing such a case concerning politics. In addition, it has served as a precedent to subsequent cases, including Ex Parte Yerger and Yick Wo v. Hopkins. Subsequent cases as such are viewed more in-depth in the second timeline below.

Second Timeline:

Constitutional Provisions:

Article lll, Section 2, Clause 2 states “The appellate powers of this court are not given by the judicial act, but are given by the Constitution,” they are, nevertheless, “limited and regulated by that act, and by such other acts as have been passed on the subject.”
Article lll, Section 2, Clause 2 states “of making exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.” “They have described affirmatively,” said the court.
Article lll, Section 2, Clause 2 states “its jurisdiction, and this affirmative description has been understood to imply a negation of the exercise of such appellate power as is not comprehended within it.”

Major Statute(s) Under Review:

The appellate jurisdiction of the U. S. Supreme Court is not derived from Congressional acts, but instead is conferred by the Constitution. However, it is conferred with such exceptions and under such regulations as Congress shall make.
The Constitution gives the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction, but it gives Congress the express power to make exceptions to that appellate jurisdiction.
The Court must always determine first if it has jurisdiction to review a case.

Important Precedents:

Durousseau v. The United States (1810)
Norris v. Crocker (1851)
Insurance Company v. Ritchie (1866)

Important Subsequent Cases:

Ex Parte Yerger (1869)
Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)
Whitney v. California (1927)
Ex Parte Quirin (1942)

Web Resources:

Christianson, Stephen. “Ex Parte McCardle: 1868.” Encyclopedia.com. 2002. Accessed July 26, 2016. Available at this link.
“Ex Parte McCardle – Case Brief Summary.” Lawnix Free Case Briefs RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 July 2016. Available at this link.
“Ex Parte McCardle.” Case Brief Summary. September 30, 2012. Accessed July 02, 2016. Available at this link.
“Ex Parte McCardle – Congress Denies Mccardle Access To Supreme Court.” – Act, Jurisdiction, Judgment, and Habeas. Accessed July 26, 2016. Available at this link.
“Ex Parte McCardle.” Justia. Accessed July 3, 2016. Available at this link.
“Ex Parte McCardle – Recent Analysis.” Ex Parte McCardle – Recent Analysis. Accessed July 26, 2016. Available at this link.
“Ex Parte McCardle – Significance.” Law Library – American Law and Legal Information. Accessed July 08, 2016. Available at this link.

Academic Books, Articles and Law Reviews:

Barron, Jerome A., C. Thomas Dienes, Wayne McCormack, and Martin H. Redish. Constitutional Law Principles and Policy, Cases and Materials. 8th ed. LexisNexis, 2012.
Van Alstyne, William W. “A Critical Guide to Ex Parte McCardle.” William and Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. November 11, 2010. Accessed July 1, 2016. Available at this link.

Contributors:

Shaniqua S. Dobbs
Jalen N. Heggs
Loretta Spires

Tasks for Future Contributors:

Decision Analysis
Scholarly Commentary and Debate