A congressional statute purports to prevent federal courts from hearing claims related to violations of federal civil rights statutes. A plaintiff brings a lawsuit alleging such violations and argues the statute is unconstitutional because it improperly limits judicial review of federal claims. Which of the following is the BEST argument that the statute is unconstitutional?
The statute is invalid because Congress lacks any constitutional authority to alter the jurisdiction of federal courts, as jurisdiction is fixed in the Constitution.
The statute is invalid because it infringes on the president's authority to enforce federal law under the Take Care Clause.
The statute violates the Supremacy Clause by precluding federal courts from adjudicating claims involving federal law, thus undermining the constitutional guarantee of a federal forum for federal claims.
The statute is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause by preventing certain groups of plaintiffs from accessing federal courts.
Congress has broad authority under Article III to define and limit the jurisdiction of federal courts. However, this authority is not unlimited. Congress cannot remove jurisdiction in a way that prevents any federal forum from reviewing federal claims, as the Supremacy Clause ensures that federal law is supreme. The correct answer highlights this principle, recognizing that the Constitution ensures certain claims must be reviewable. Incorrect answers fail to account for this important aspect of judicial review or misunderstand the scope of Congress's Article III powers.
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?