"No court of the United States and no court of any State shall have jurisdiction to hear or decide any civil action or claim arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or under any other statute enacted pursuant to the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, or Fifteenth Amendments."
A plaintiff files a § 1983 action in federal district court, alleging that police officers violated his federal civil rights. The district court dismisses for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the new statute. On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the jurisdiction-stripping provision itself is unconstitutional.
Which of the following is the strongest ground for striking down the provision?
The statute discriminates against civil-rights plaintiffs and therefore violates the Equal Protection Clause.
The statute is an ex post facto law because it was enacted after the plaintiff's rights were violated.
By abolishing all judicial forums-federal and state-for enforcing federal civil-rights statutes, Congress has violated due process and the separation of powers, because some court must remain available to vindicate federal rights.
The provision is invalid because Article III forbids Congress from making any exceptions to the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction in cases arising under federal law.
Congress may regulate the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and may make exceptions to the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction, but those powers are limited by other constitutional provisions. A statute that eliminates every judicial forum-federal or state-for the vindication of federal civil-rights claims would deprive persons of any meaningful opportunity to enforce federally protected rights. That complete denial of a judicial forum violates due process and unduly intrudes on the judiciary's essential role of interpreting and applying federal law, exceeding Congress's authority under Article III. The other options are weaker: Congress may remove federal jurisdiction without violating Article III so long as some tribunal (often state courts) remains; ex post facto limits apply only to criminal laws; and nothing in the statute targets a protected class on its face, so an equal-protection argument is secondary.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is the Supremacy Clause?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How does Article III of the Constitution relate to federal court jurisdiction?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What is the significance of judicial review in the context of federal claims?