Limiting Court Jurisdiction Over Federal Constitutional Issues: “Court-Stripping”

Over the years, various proposals have been made to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts to hear cases regarding particular areas of constitutional law such as busing, abortion, prayer in school, and most recently, reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.Several such proposals passed the House in the 108 th Congress, including an amendment to H.R. 2799 to limit the use of funds to enforce a federal court decision regarding the Pledge of Allegiance; H.R. 2028, to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts to hear cases regarding the Pledge of Allegiance; and H.R. 3313, to limit federal court jurisdiction over questions regarding the Defense of Marriage Act.Generally, proponents of these proposals are critical of specific decisions made by the federal courts in that particular substantive area, and the proposals are usually intended to express disagreement with cases in those areas and/or to influence the results or applications of such cases.Proposals of this type are often referred to as "court-stripping" legislation.The label arises from the fact that many of these proposals invoke the Congress's power to regulate federal court jurisdiction, i.e., the courts' power to consider cases of a particular class and in a particular procedural posture.It should be noted, however, that some proposals characterized as "courtstripping," rather than focusing on jurisdiction, address what remedies are available to litigants or what procedures must be followed to bring constitutional cases.Although the United States Congress has broad authority to regulate in all three of these areas of judicial power -jurisdiction, procedure and remedies -this authority is generally used to address broader issues of court efficiency and resource allocation.This report, however, is limited to proposals to allocate judicial power in a way that affects or influences the result in cases concerning specific constitutional issues.