Law Study Aids
Courses
- 1L Prep Course
Solutions
- Professors and Institutions

Generic selectors

Exact matches only

Search in title

Search in content

Post Type Selectors

Advanced Search | Notes Search

Start My FREE 7-DAY Trial

Log In

Remember Me

Forgot Password?

Forgot Password?

Forgotten Password

Cancel

Generic selectors

Exact matches only

Search in title

Search in content

Post Type Selectors

Law Study Aids
Courses
- 1L Prep Course
Solutions
- Professors and Institutions

Start My FREE 7-DAY Trial

Log In Sign up

Remember Me

Forgot Password?

Forgot Password?

Forgotten Password

Cancel

SmartBrief enables case brief popups that define Key Terms, Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises used in this case.

SmartBrief

A.I Enhanced Margin Brief to quickly recall case brief

A.I Enhanced Margin Brief to quickly recall case brief

Sections to print

Brief Prologue
Case Brief
Brief Epilogue
Notes

To print, please Start a Free Trial or Log in.

Confirm favorite deletion?

Cancel Yes, Delete

Constitutional Law Keyed to Farber

View this case in different Casebooks

Constitutional Law Keyed to Chemerinsky Constitutional Law Keyed to Cohen Constitutional Law Keyed to Stone Constitutional Law Keyed to Feldman Constitutional Law Keyed to Varat Constitutional Law Keyed to Choper Constitutional Law Keyed to Shanor Constitutional Law Keyed to Gershman Constitutional Law Keyed to Maggs

Ex Parte McCardle

Citation:

74 U.S. (7 Wall). 506 (1869)

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

Facts

McCardle was a civilian being held for trial by military commission in Mississippi for allegedly publishing “incendiary and libelous” articles in his newspaper in violation of federal Reconstruction statutes. The federal circuit court denied his application for habeas corpus, and he appealed to the Supreme Court. MrCardle relied on 1876 federal statute providing the Supreme Court with appellate jurisdiction in habeas corpus cases. The case was argued in the Supreme Court in early March 1868. On March 27, 1868, Congress enacted a statute that provided “that so much of the act of 1867 as authorized an appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court to the Supreme Court, or the exercise of any such jurisdiction by said Supreme Court, on appeals which have been, or may hereafter be taken, and the same is hereby repealed.”

Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*

Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.

*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue

The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
Topic:
Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
Parties:
Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
Procedural Posture & History:
Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.:
A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises:
Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
Brief Facts:
A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
Rule of Law:
Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
Facts:
What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case.
Issue(s):
Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
Holding:
Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
Concurring / Dissenting Opinions:
Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
Reasoning and Analysis:
Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
Policy:
Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
Court Direction:
Shares where the Court went from here for this case.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

Case Quiz

Retake Attempts

Question 1 of 3

Results

0 of 3 Questions answered correctly.

Results

Quiz complete. Results are being recorded.

Q.1 - Which interpretive account most accurately explains why the Court in McCardle treated Congress’s repeal of the habeas-appeal statute as dispositive despite prudential separation-of-powers concerns?

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

(A) Because the Court concluded that jurisdictional grants are purely discretionary legislative favors that may be revoked at any time without constitutional consequence.

Incorrect. This is wrong: Overly formal and absolutist — McCardle did not say jurisdictional grants are mere favors immune to any constitutional constraint.

(B) Because the Court believed the repeal reflected a political question unsuitable for judicial determination, and therefore decline to decide on separation-of-powers grounds.

Incorrect. This is wrong: The Court did not base its dismissal on political-question nonjusticiability.

(C) Because the repeal altered the statutory remedial pathway (the appellate route) rather than adjudicating substantive rights, so the Exceptions Clause operated to remove the Court’s statutory authority to hear the appeal.

Correct! The McCardle Court distinguished between Congress’s power to alter the remedial apparatus that gives statutory appellate jurisdiction and any attempt to resolve substantive rights by legislation; because Congress removed the statutory route, the Court had no statutory authority to adjudicate the pending appellate matter. This approach treats the Exceptions Clause as controlling over statutory remedies while leaving open constitutional claims that might be pursued by other means.

(D) Because the Court inferred an implicit constitutional waiver by the petitioner when he invoked statutory (not constitutional) grounds in his petition.

Incorrect. This is wrong: There was no holding that the petitioner implicitly waived Article III review by invoking statutory grounds.

Q.2 - Which doctrinal proposition best captures McCardle’s continuing significance for contemporary debates over congressional jurisdiction-stripping (i.e., Congress insulating statutes from Supreme Court review)?

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

(A) McCardle is best read as a narrow precedent that recognizes Congress’s power to alter appellate remedies but signals that wholesale foreclosure of all avenues for constitutional adjudication could present distinct constitutional and justiciability problems.

Correct! McCardle confirms Congress may pare back statutory avenues to the Court, but the opinion’s narrow posture and the availability of alternate review pathways counsel that the case does not license unlimited congressional foreclosure of all judicial review; modern doctrine treats McCardle as an important but circumscribed precedent. That interpretive restraint animates contemporary skepticism that Congress can entirely eliminate constitutional adjudication across all federal fora.

(B) McCardle authorizes Congress to revoke Supreme Court review only where the subject matter pertains to wartime or military governance.

Incorrect. This is wrong: McCardle did not confine jurisdictional withdrawal to military or wartime matters alone.

(C) McCardle establishes that Congress may, consistent with Article III, immunize any statute from any federal judicial review, including the inferior courts, so long as it repeals the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction.

Incorrect. This is wrong: The case does not establish an unfettered power to immunize statutes from all federal judicial review.

(D) McCardle requires that any jurisdictional repeal be accompanied by contemporaneous legislative findings of necessity to survive constitutional challenge.

Incorrect. This is wrong: McCardle did not impose a legislative-finding requirement as a constitutional prerequisite for repeal.

Q.3 - Which formulation most precisely characterizes the Court’s use of avoidance/justiciability reasoning in dismissing McCardle’s appeal?

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

(A) The Court invoked the political-question doctrine to refuse adjudication because Reconstruction policy was nonjusticiable.

Incorrect. This is wrong: The political-question doctrine was not invoked.

(B) The Court treated the repeal as removing the statutory locus of Article III authority for that appellate route, producing a mandatory jurisdictional dismissal rather than a prudential avoidance exercise.

Correct! The Court’s dismissal was doctrinally compelled by the absence of the statutory source of appellate jurisdiction—this is a mandatory jurisdictional dismissal (an instance where statutory withdrawal leaves no Article III authority for that procedural posture), not a prudential or political-question avoidance. Because no statute remained conferring the appellate route, the Court said it could not reach merits despite any underlying constitutional issues.

(C) The Court applied prudential mootness, concluding that legislative repeal mooted the controversy and thus precluded merits review.

Incorrect. This is wrong: The Court did not deem the matter moot in the prudential sense; the controversy persisted but jurisdiction was withdrawn.

(D) The Court relied on comity principles and exercised equitable discretion to stay review until Congress reassessed Reconstruction statutes.

Incorrect. This is wrong: The decision did not rest on comity or equitable deferral to Congress.

MarginBrief^™ Case overview for optimal recall

A.I Enhanced Margin Brief to quickly recall case brief

Generating...

Facts:

Quickly review the Facts of this case including its key ideas for optimal understanding and recall.

Quickly review the Facts of this case including its key ideas for optimal understanding and recall.

Issue:

Utilize our powerful A.I. tools to easily capture and understand the Issue in this case.

Utilize our powerful A.I. tools to easily capture and understand the Issue in this case.

Rule:

Easily understand the Rule in this case so you have a complete and thorough appreciation for overall case concepts completely tying together what occurred, the court’s questions and the case outcome.

Easily understand the Rule in this case so you have a complete and thorough appreciation for overall case concepts completely tying together what occurred, the court’s questions and the case outcome.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

Topic Resources

Topic Video

Ex Parte McCardle

14m 30s

See complete Lesson, Quizzes and More

Topic Outline

Appellate Review

Topic Refresher Course

Topic Charts & Notes

Status:

Your Law School
Success Begins Here

Case Briefs - the Socratic Savior! – Best in class and Largest Library of complete I.R.A.C. / C.R.E.A.C. Law School case briefs. Includes:
- SmartBriefs® - Enhanced case briefs for optimal clarity
- New Case Videos - Explained and Summarized for optimal case understanding
- CaseCast® - Professor overviews of "What you need to know"
- New MarginBrief® - A.I. - Powered for faster, more efficient case recall
Lessons - Professor delivered video for topic reinforcement
Outlines - Professor written - downloadable, amendable and includes test-taking tips and tools
New Case Quiz - Reinforce case principles, instantly scored
Refresher Courses - Quick course reviews with interactive exercises
Quizzes and Exams - over 5,000 Multiple Choice and Essay questions all Professor curated and answered
New My Reviewer™ - Instantly receive a Score, Critique and Feedback on your legal writing
Exam Prep Workshops - Delivered by Professors on how to disect, organize and answer law school exam questions
and so much more ...

Start your FREE Trial

Notepad Click anywhere in notepad to add a note

Ex Parte McCardle