After a large terrorist attack, Congress passes a statute requiring aliens from the enemy nation to depart the United States or face deportation, and it vests the Supreme Court with original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear challenges to the statute. Is this constitutional?

After a large terrorist attack, Congress passes a statute requiring aliens from the enemy nation to depart the United States or face deportation, and it vests the Supreme Court with original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear challenges to the statute. Is this constitutional?

• A. No, because the statute does not fall within Article III's original-jurisdiction categories.
• B. No, because it violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment.
• C. Yes, because Congress has broad power to enact naturalization-related provisions under Article I.
• D. No, because Congress cannot expand the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction beyond the enumerated categories in Article III.

Answer: (A)

The key idea is that Article III confines the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to a narrow set of situations, and Congress cannot simply grant broad original jurisdiction over a category of cases that doesn’t fit those categories. The Constitution lists original-jurisdiction cases in two ways: certain cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state is a party. The question’s statute would give the Supreme Court original and exclusive jurisdiction over challenges to the statute itself, a matter not falling into any of those listed categories. Since this does not match the enumerated original-jurisdiction categories, the grant would exceed what Article III permits, making it unconstitutional. The other suggested bases—such as equal-protection concerns or Congress’s general Article I powers over naturalization—do not address the constitutional limit on original jurisdiction that Article III imposes.

The key idea is that Article III confines the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to a narrow set of situations, and Congress cannot simply grant broad original jurisdiction over a category of cases that doesn’t fit those categories. The Constitution lists original-jurisdiction cases in two ways: certain cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state is a party. The question’s statute would give the Supreme Court original and exclusive jurisdiction over challenges to the statute itself, a matter not falling into any of those listed categories. Since this does not match the enumerated original-jurisdiction categories, the grant would exceed what Article III permits, making it unconstitutional. The other suggested bases—such as equal-protection concerns or Congress’s general Article I powers over naturalization—do not address the constitutional limit on original jurisdiction that Article III imposes.