NO!!!!
The Constitution defines the jurisdiction of SCOTUS. Marbury v. Madison was decided on this issue, could Congress modify the jurisdiction of SCOTUS? No. The Constitution defines SCOTUS jurisdiction, and either the constitution controls, or a law contrary to the constitution controls. Given a conflict in source of law, the superior source (between Constitution and law) is Constitution.
The Constitution defines the jurisdiction of SCOTUS. Marbury v. Madison was decided on this issue, could Congress modify the jurisdiction of SCOTUS? No. The Constitution defines SCOTUS jurisdiction, and either the constitution controls, or a law contrary to the constitution controls. Given a conflict in source of law, the superior source (between Constitution and law) is Constitution.
Here is the text of Article III Section 2.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Marbury only held that the Congress could not expand or restrict the court's Original jurisdiction. You win the point anyway though. Since the plaintiff's are states, the Supreme Court can claim original jurisdiction.
Yes and no. The constitution gives original jurisdiction on some issues to the Supreme Court and on any other legal matters the scope of the court’s jurisdiction is up to Congress (with the President signing on). Congress can create inferior courts to help out, and define their jurisdiction. That is what it did. It now needs to take away jurisdiction of some matters, and expand the appellate courts with dozens of new judges (split the 9th, for starters).