a.
General rule: Congress has the power to restrict or
eliminate lower federal court jurisdiction; there are no clear
Art. III limits
b.
Sheldon v. Sill = general rule
1.
Rejects literal reading of Art. III
2.
Art. III neither creates lower federal courts nor requires
Congress to vest such courts with any particular subset of
the judicial power
c.
Eisenberg's "changed circumstances" theory:
Today, there must be some lower federal courts to handle
federal questions that the Supreme Court does not have time
for
d.
Amar's "two-tier" theory: Congress must vest
the first three "heads" of Art. III jurisdiction in some
federal court
e.
Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc.: Not a
jurisdiction-stripping case, but implicates similar Art. III
themes
1.
Statute requires reopening of final judgments
A.
Final judgment = all appeals have been exhausted, or when
time to appeal has expired
2.
Statute does not violate Klein or Hayburn's Case
3.
By requiring retroactive reopening of final judgments,
statute violates separation of powers
A.
Judicial power necessarily includes power to render truly
dispositive judgments
B.
Judicial power also includes power to say what the
applicable law is at a given time
4.
Majority favors rigid approach to separation of powers over
flexible approach
A.
"Good fences make good neighbors"
5.
Stevens dissent: Prefers flexible approach
A.
Would permit Congress to reopen final judgments unless
Congress attempts to dictate results in particular cases
(i.e., adjudicate rather than legislate)
