A framework for analyzing the constitutionality of restrictions on federal court jurisdiction in immigration cases

University of Memphis Law Review, The, Winter 1999 by Chemerinsky, Erwin

There simply never has been a Supreme Court decision construing a statute to preclude all federal court review. As described above, the Supreme Court has always construed statutes to leave open some option for federal jurisdiction and has upheld laws that partially restrict jurisdiction.

There have been a few lower federal court cases concerning statutes interpreted as barring all federal court review. In Battaglia v. General Motors Corp.,93 the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered a federal statute that precluded all judicial review. Prior to enactment of the statute, the Supreme Court had held that employees were allowed to consider as part of their workweek time spent walking to and from their workstations.94 Congress responded by adopting a statute, the Portal-to-Portal Act,95 specifying that time spent on such activities did not count as part of the workweek. Moreover, the Act provided that "[n]o court of the United States, of any State, Territory, or possession of the United States, or of the District of Columbia, shall have jurisdiction . . . to enforce liability or impose punishment" for failure of the employer to pay for work time spent on such activities.96

The Second Circuit indicated that Congress could not restrict jurisdiction in a manner that prevented all courts from hearing claims. The court explained that

while Congress has the undoubted power to give, withhold, and restrict the jurisdiction of courts other than the Supreme Court, it must not so exercise that power as to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or to take private property without just compensation.97

Also, in Eisentrager v. Forrestal,98 the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit considered a habeas corpus petition from an individual who was imprisoned by United States military authorities in Germany. The federal habeas corpus statute, as then interpreted, provided that a federal court could grant habeas relief only to prisoners held within the jurisdiction of the court.99 Therefore, no federal court had jurisdiction to hear Eisentrager's claim that he was held in custody in violation of the United States Constitution. No state court could hear his habeas petition because of the Supreme Court's decision in Tarble's Case,100 which prevented state courts from granting habeas to federal prisoners. The Supreme Court lacked original jurisdiction and could not hear the matter on appeal because there was no lower court from which an appeal could be taken.

The District of Columbia Circuit found the complete preclusion of jurisdiction to be unconstitutional and heard the case. The court said that because a state court cannot inquire into the validity of federal custody, federal jurisdiction must exist; otherwise, the government's action would be completely unreviewable.101

4. The complete preclusion of jurisdiction in immigration matters should be deemed unconstitutional; the Supreme Court should recognize a constitutional right to a judicial forum.