Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 17 views

    2d - Muskrat Vs Us

    Uploaded by

    Yash Manin
    The Supreme Court held that it does not have jurisdiction to determine the constitutional validity of an act of Congress unless there is a genuine case or controversy between adverse parties. The case involved a challenge to acts of Congress restricting the rights of Native Americans to land that had previously been allocated to them. However, the Court found this case did not present an actual controversy, but rather Congress attempting to assign non-judicial duties to the Court by requesting an advisory opinion on the legislation's constitutionality. As a result, the judgments were reversed and the cases remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    2d - Muskrat Vs Us

    Uploaded by

    Yash Manin
    17 views1 page
    The Supreme Court held that it does not have jurisdiction to determine the constitutional validity of an act of Congress unless there is a genuine case or controversy between adverse parties. The case involved a challenge to acts of Congress restricting the rights of Native Americans to land that had previously been allocated to them. However, the Court found this case did not present an actual controversy, but rather Congress attempting to assign non-judicial duties to the Court by requesting an advisory opinion on the legislation's constitutionality. As a result, the judgments were reversed and the cases remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    2d_ Muskrat vs Us

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court held that it does not have jurisdiction to determine the constitutional validity of an act of Congress unless there is a genuine case or controversy between adverse parties. The case involved a challenge to acts of Congress restricting the rights of Native Americans to land that had previously been allocated to them. However, the Court found this case did not present an actual controversy, but rather Congress attempting to assign non-judicial duties to the Court by requesting an advisory opinion on the legislation's constitutionality. As a result, the judgments were reversed and the cases remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    17 views1 page

    2d - Muskrat Vs Us

    Uploaded by

    Yash Manin
    The Supreme Court held that it does not have jurisdiction to determine the constitutional validity of an act of Congress unless there is a genuine case or controversy between adverse parties. The case involved a challenge to acts of Congress restricting the rights of Native Americans to land that had previously been allocated to them. However, the Court found this case did not present an actual controversy, but rather Congress attempting to assign non-judicial duties to the Court by requesting an advisory opinion on the legislation's constitutionality. As a result, the judgments were reversed and the cases remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Muskrat v.

    United States

    Citation. 219 U.S. 346 (1911)

    Brief Fact Summary.

    The constitutionality of an act restricting the rights of Native Americans who were previously
    allocated land. This case comes on appeal to determine the Supreme Court’s scope of
    jurisdiction, and if Congress can expand this scope allowing for advisory opinions.

    Synopsis of Rule of Law.

    The United States Supreme Court has jurisdiction only to review cases and controversies
    between adverse parties, and not to deliver advisory opinions.

    Facts.

    Congress passed an act in 1902 allocating land to Native Americans. Subsequently, Congress
    passed additional acts restricting the rights of Native Americans who were previously allocated
    land. Then in 1907, Congress passed another act allowing Native Americans to bring suits
    against the United States to determine the constitutionality of those acts passed after the 1902
    act, and allowing counsel for both sides to be paid from the United States Treasury. Muskrat
    (Plaintiff) and others brought suit against the United States (Defendant), contesting the
    constitutionality of the less favorable acts passed after 1902. This case comes on appeal to
    determine the Supreme Court’s scope of jurisdiction, and if Congress can expand this scope
    allowing for advisory opinions.

    Issue.

    Whether the United States Supreme Court has jurisdiction to determine the constitutional
    validity of an act of Congress when there is no case or controversy between adverse parties.

    Held.

    No. The judgments are reversed, the cases are remanded, and the petition should be dismissed
    for lack of jurisdiction.

    Discussion.

    The legislative and executive branches cannot constitutionally assign duties to the judicial
    branch, except those that are properly judicial. The Constitution draws lines separating the three
    branches of government. The judicial branch under Article III does not have the authority to
    decide questions or give opinions, other than “cases and controversies” between adverse
    parties that come through the proper appellate channels. This case is not an actual controversy,
    and the underlying statute is in reality merely a test of the constitutionality of the legislation. The
    Court’s ruling would be an advisory opinion.

    You might also like