Sec. 2.-Jurisdiction Cl. 1.-Extent of Power court's power over the parties; over the subject matter; over the Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 718. Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 514. Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U. S. 274. Overby v. Gordon, 177 U. S. 220. Cooper v. Reynolds, 10 Wall. 316. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 173. National Exch. Bank v. Peters, 144 U. S. 570. Mayor v. Cooper, 6 Wall. 247. Ames v. Kansas, 111 U. S. 469. Gaines v. Fuentes, 92 U. S. 18. Exercise of Jurisdiction as Dependent on Statutes Supreme Court.-The Supreme Court alone possesses jurisdiction derived immediately from the Constitution, and of which the legislative power can not deprive it. Stevenson v. Fain, 195 U. S. 167. Ex parte Wisner, 203 U. S. 449. Inferior courts.-The primary source of jurisdiction in the Federal courts is found in the Constitution, but it is directly conferred through the medium of Congress by grants thereof, and is conferred with such limitations and exceptions as the Congress shall prescribe when creating the courts and defining their authority. Bankers Trust Co. v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 241 U. S. 295. U. S. v. Eckford, 6 Wall. 488. Kline v. Burke Constr. Co., 260 U. S. 226. The jurisdiction of the circuit court is prescribed by laws enacted by Congress in pursuance of the Constitution and the Supreme Court by its rules has no power to increase or diminish the jurisdiction thus created though it may regulate its exercise in any manner not inconsistent with the laws of the United States. Venner v. Great Northern R. Co., 209 U. S. 35. See also Turner v. Bank, 4 Dall. 10. Sheldon v. Sill, 8 How. 448. Sec. 2.-Jurisdiction Cl. 1.-Extent of Power Succession of courts for original and appellate jurisdiction The exercise of appellate jurisdiction is far from being limited by the terms of the Constitution to the Supreme Court. There can be no doubt that Congress may create a succession of inferior tribunals, in each of which it may vest appellate as well as original jurisdiction. The judicial power is delegated by the Constitution in the most general terms, and may, therefore, be exercised by Congress under every variety of form of appellate or original jurisdiction. And as there is nothing in the Constitution which restrains or limits this power, it must therefore, in all other cases, subsist in the utmost latitude of which, in its own nature, it is susceptible. See also Insurance Company v. Dunn, 19 Wall. 226. Power to suspend sentence.-An order suspending during good behavior the execution of a sentence to imprisonment, in a case in which the sentence imposed is the minimum prescribed by statute for the offense charged, amounts to a refusal by the judicial power to perform a duty resting upon it and to an interference with both the legislative and executive authority as fixed by the Constitution. Ex parte United States, 242 U. S. 27. Jurisdiction not extended beyond limits of Constitution.-An act of Congress can not extend the jurisdiction beyond the limits of the Constitution, and a statute giving jurisdiction to the circuit courts in all suits in which an alien is a party is invalid. Hodgson v. Bowerbank, 5 Cranch 303. Owings v. Norwood, 5 Cranch 348. Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 401. Mandamus.-Congress has power to authorize a circuit court to issue a mandamus in an original proceeding. Knapp v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 197 U. S. 542. Kendall v. U. S., 12 Pet. 618. McIntire v. Wood, 7 Cranch 504. A circuit court of the United States has not the power to issue a writ commanding the Secretary of the Treasury to pay a territorial judge his salary for the unexpired term of his office from which he had been removed. U. S. v. Guthrie, 17 How. 284. Though the relief sought concerns an alleged right secured by the Constitution, a circuit court of the United States has no jurisdiction in original cases of mandamus until Congress shall otherwise provide. Covington, etc., Brdg. Co. v. Hager, 203 U. S. 109. Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 478. Cases and Controversies In order that the judicial power may extend to a case arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States or a treaty, Sec. 2.-Jurisdiction Cl. 1.-Extent of Power-Cases and Controversies it must be "a case in law or in equity" in which a right under such Constitution, law, or treaty is asserted in a court of justice. A suit in which a party seeks protection under a law is one arising under that law; and where the right of either party to a suit depends upon the validity of an act of Congress, the case is one arising under the Constitution. The construction of a treaty is deemed to be drawn into question for the purposes of Federal jurisdiction where the issue is as to whether an act done or omitted was in conformity to the treaty. But the case must really and substantially involve a question contemplated by this clause; the mere controverting a right or disputing an act is not necessarily sufficient. Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 379. Minnesota Co. v. St. Paul Co., 2 Wall. 634. Railroad Co. v. Mississippi, 102 U. S. 140. Patton v. Brady, 184 U. S. 611. Smith v. Maryland, 6 Cranch 304. Bier v. McGehee, 148 U. S. 141. Western Union v. Ann Arbor R. Co., 178 U. S. 239. Ferry v. King County, 141 U. S. 673. The jurisdiction of the Federal courts is commensurate with every right and duty created, declared, or necessarily implied by and under the Federal Constitution and laws. A "case" is a question contested before a court of justice, and a case "in law" or "equity" consists in the right of one party as well as of the other, and it "arises" when its correct decision depends on the construction of the Constitution or laws of the United States. It is a suit instituted according to the regular course of judicial procedure. The interests of the parties must be adverse; the clause does not contemplate suits merely to determine abstract principles. It is limited to such suits as are between parties and are of a judicial nature, and does not include purely political questions. When the subject of a controversy is political, that is, where it involves a question purely governmental, the courts can not take cognizance of it. Irvine v. Marshall, 20 How. 564. Owings v. Norwood, 5 Cranch 348. Wood-Paper Co. v. Heft, 8 Wall. 336. Foster v. Mansfield etc., R. Co. 146 U. S. 101. Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 1. U. S. v. Ferreira, 13 How. 40. Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet. 438. Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. 20. Boynton v. Blaine, 139 U. S. 326. In re Cooper, 143 U. S. 503. Georgia v. Stanton, 6 Wall. 71. Muskrat v. U. S., 219 U. S. 346. Sec. 2.-Jurisdiction Cl. 1.-Extent of Power-Cases and Controversies If a proceeding involves a right which in its nature is susceptible of judicial determination, and if the determination of it is not simply ancillary or advisory, but is the final and indisputable basis of action by the parties, it is a "case" within the meaning of this provision. La Abra Mining Co. v. U. S., 175 U. S. 457. It is apparent upon the face of this clause that in one class of cases the jurisdiction of the Federal courts depends on the character of the cause, whoever may be the parties, and in the other on the character of the parties, whatever may be the subject of controversy. U. S. v. Texas, 143 U. S. 643. The use of the word "controversies" as in contradistinction to the word "cases" and the omission of the word "all" in respect of controversies, left it to Congress to define the controversies over which the courts it was empowered to ordain and establish might exercise jurisdiction and the manner in which this was to be done. Stevenson v. Fain, 195 U. S. 167. In Law and Equity In General Cases at law, under the Constitution, are those suits in which legal rights are ascertained and determined, in contradistinction to those where equitable rights alone are recognized and equitable rights administered. Equity cases are those suits in which relief is sought according to the principles and practice of the equity jurisdiction as established in English jurisprudence. A case can be considered only when the subject matter is submitted in the form prescribed by law, and the record must show not only that some law or treaty or right under the Constitution is drawn into question but that such law or treaty or constitutional right is substantially involved. The validity of a statute is not drawn into question every time rights claimed under that statute are controverted, nor is the validity of an authority drawn into question every time an act done under such authority is disputed, and a suit to enforce a right or title taking its origin from United States laws is not necessarily such as Federal courts may entertain regardless of citizenship. Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 447. Irvine v. Marshall, 20 How. 565. Strother v. Lucas, 6 Pet. 768. Parish v. Ellis, 16 Pet. 453. Bennett v. Butterworth, 11 How. 669. Sheirburn v. De Cordova, 24 How. 423. Robinson v. Campbell, 3 Wheat. 212. Lawler v. Walker, 14 How. 149. Mills v. Brown, 16 Pet. 525. Railroad Co. v. Rock, 4 Wall. 180. Ryan v. Thomas, 4 Wall. 603. Sec. 2.-Jurisdiction Cl. 1.-Extent of Power-Law and Equity La Abra Mining Co. v. U. S., 175 U. S. 455. Shoshone Min. Co. v. Rutter, 177 U. S. 507. In actions at law the general practice is to try all the issues in a case at one time, and it is only in exceptional instances that distinct causes of action asserted in the same case may be made the subjects of separate trials. Miller v. American Bonding Co., 257 U. S. 304. In Fairchild v. Hughes (258 U. S. 126), which was a proceeding to have the Nineteenth Amendment declared void, the court said: "In form it is a bill in equity; but it is not a case" within the meaning of this section. A suit by an individual or by a State, as parens patriæ, to restrain the enforcement of an act of Congress authorizing appropriations of public money, upon the ground that the act is invalid, can not be entertained in equity. Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447. Distinction Between Law and Equity In creating and defining the judicial power of the General Government the situation establishes the distinction between law and equity; and a party who claims a legal title must proceed according to the forms of practice in such cases in the State court. But if the claim is an equitable one, he must proceed according to rules which have been prescribed by the United States Supreme Court regulating proceedings in equity in the courts of the United States. Uniform Equity Jurisdiction in All the States The equity jurisdiction of the courts of the United States is derived from the Constitution and laws of the United States. Their powers and rules of decision are the same in all the States. Their practice is regulated by themselves and by rules established by the Supreme Court. Noonan v. Lee, 2 Black 509. As the courts of the Union have a chancery jurisdiction in every State, and the judiciary act confers the same chancery powers on all and gives the same rule of decision, its jurisdiction in one State must be the same as in other States. U. S. v. Howland, 4 Wheat. 115. Neves v. Scott, 13 How. 272. |