Can Congress pass a law preventing the US Supreme Court from later ruling on that law?

Answer 1

While the President and Congress can't directly change an unfavorable decision, they may circumvent the decision by passing legislation that addresses the constitutional challenge while still accomplishing their goal. For example, if the Supreme Court decides corporations can contribute an unlimited amount of money to political campaigns, Congress may try to pass legislation restricting companies with foreign ownership or foreign subsidiaries from donating to prevent foreign powers from participating in the US political process.

Optionally, Congress could work with the States to ratify a constitutional amendment that effectively defeats the Court's objectives (this is a difficult and time-consuming process, however).

Congress also has the right to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing certain types of cases under their appellate jurisdiction (called jurisdiction stripping) to reduce the possibility of certain controversies being declared unconstitutional in the future. This action wouldn't prevent a specific judgment from being acted upon, but could check the judiciary and restrict them from making sweeping changes.

Because the Supreme Court has no authority to enforce its decisions, the President may ignore a decision or refuse to take action supporting it. Such was the case with many civil rights decisions made before Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and 1968).

Answer 2

Yes. Congress can pass legislation that prevents the US Supreme Court from exercising appellate jurisdiction over certain Executive and Legislative actions, either in whole or in part. This is known as jurisdiction stripping, or curtailment of jurisdiction. Congress cannot pass legislation that interferes with the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, as granted by the constitution, nor can they concurrently remove jurisdiction from the Supreme Court and inferior courts, leaving no forum to challenge the legislation (although they may specify which court or courts will have original and appellate jurisdiction in such cases, as they did with Guantanamo detainees).

The power to assign jurisdiction derives from three constitutional sources:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 19

"...To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;"

Article III, Section 1

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.

Article III, Section 2

"...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."

The Court acknowledges this check on judicial power as constitutionally valid. Felix Frankfurter conceded in his dissenting opinion in National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tidewater Transfer Co., 337 US 582 (1949):

"Congress need not give this Court any appellate power; it may withdraw appellate jurisdiction once conferred and it may do so even while a case is sub judice [under consideration]."

Frankfurter's last point is grounded in historical fact, as Congress curtailed the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over Ex Parte McCardle, 74 US 506 (1869) before the justices could make a decision.

Critics of jurisdiction stripping, such as the American Judicature Society, believe Congress sometimes employs this method in an attempt to change constitutional law "without complying with the procedural rules for amending the Constitution," due to the difficulty involved in ratifying amendments. Congress may curtail jurisdiction in reaction to a Supreme Court decision that was particularly unpopular with Congress, or take preemptive action if they suspect the Court would overturn the legislation, if challenged. The American Judicature Society believes abuse of this power threatens the independence of the Judicial branch of government.

Examples of jurisdiction stripping include:

• The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (denied federal courts the right to challenge decisions the INS makes regarding asylum-granting).
• The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (PLRA) (restricts remedies to civil litigation relating to prison conditions)
• The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) (limits the number of habeas petitions state prisoners can file in federal court).