Alito says Congress has ‘no authority’ to regulate Supreme Court

The Hill ^ | 07/28/23 3:31 PM ET | BY ZACH SCHONFELD

[RandFan]

Justice Samuel Alito said Congress has “no authority” to regulate the Supreme Court in an interview with the Wall Street Journal’s opinion section published Friday, pushing back against Democrats’ attempt to mandate stronger ethics rules.

Alito, one of the high court’s leading conservatives, is just one of multiple justices who have come under recent scrutiny for ethics controversies that have fueled the renewed push.

“I know this is a controversial view, but I’m willing to say it,” Alito told the Journal. “No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period.”

Although the Constitution enables Congress to structure the lower federal courts, it explicitly vests judicial power within a singular Supreme Court.

Alito and some legal observers argue that means Congress can’t prescribe certain regulations for the high court without running afoul of separation of powers issues.

Chief Justice John Roberts has also questioned Congress’s ability to act, but not as definitive as Alito’s new remarks. Many court watchers who disagree with the premise believe that Roberts’ questioning has given fodder to Republican objections.

“I don’t know that any of my colleagues have spoken about it publicly, so I don’t think I should say,” Alito told the paper. “But I think it is something we have all thought about.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.) was among the Democrats who rejected Alito’s reasoning, writing on X, formerly known as Twitter, “What a surprise, guy who is supposed to enforce checks and balances thinks checks shouldn’t apply to him.”

[nopardons]

That they are, as well as wannbe TYRANTS!

[nopardons]

Which,of course, it would be.

[nopardons]

Exactly so.

[nopardons]

There are three branches of government, each with their own duties, spelled out in the Constitution!

But obviously, there are some in power, who do not know this, or don't care what our Constitution states.

[woodpusher]

“No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period.”

This is not quite accurate. See Art. III, Sec. 2:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;—to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;—to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;—to controversies between two or more states;—between a state and citizens of another state;—between citizens of different states;—between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

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.

The Constitution did NOT create the Judicial Branch. It instructed the Congress to create one Supreme Court and lower courts at its discretion. The Judicial Branch was created by Statute law.

Congress can take away the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which is almost all of their cases. It has been done, e.g., Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506, 514 (1868).

The provision of the act of 1867, affirming the appellate jurisdiction of this court in cases of habeas corpus is expressly repealed. It is hardly possible to imagine a plainer instance of positive exception.

We are not at liberty to inquire into the motives of the legislature. We can only examine into its power under the Constitution; and the power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of this court is given by express words.

[Texan4Life]

BINGO !!

[Ciaphas Cain]

Once upon a time, people were taught all about this when they were still young.

Do students in high school even KNOW what the meaning of "amendment" is anymore?

[Az Joe]

Alito is obviously talking about the COTUS trying to regulate the SCOTUS’s non-jurisdiction issues.

[ARW]

Congress removed SCOTUS jurisdiction over Guantanamo prisoners but it went to court and sCOTUS decided they have jurisdiction anyway.

[USCG SimTech]

Bush started this whole fascist totalitarian think with the “You are either with us or you are against us” comments after 9/11. The left picked it up and ran with it OVER THEIR STANCES.

[FLT-bird]

Congress can limit the subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts. Congress can create new circuits or districts for the federal courts. Congress can even set the size of the Supreme Court.

There is no provision in the constitution however which says that Congress can regulate the Court. Justice Alito is quite correct in that - and yes, that would violate the separation of powers doctrine. Any such regulation passed by Congress would be unconstitutional.

[Flavious_Maximus]

THIS!

[fwdude]

Passing the recent “ethics” (how hilarious) legislation would effectively install a veto on court personnel and court opinions. There goes one branch of government.

[vespa300]

After reading the comments, wow, talk about a constitutional crisis in the making. Everything from the Supreme court ruling the constitution is unconstitutional to ok, who makes the final judgement on whether they can or cannot?..etc. etc.

[muir_redwoods]

Let congress pass any law it wants; scotus can simply declare it unconstitutional. Check and checkmate.

[Ex-Con777]

>so I infer that Congress could if it wished specify what constitutes “good behavior<

Then lets say someone filed suit on the new good behavior statute and it made it to SCOTUS. SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional. Now where are we?

No crime has been committed by the supremes, they cannot be impeached over it. Now what?

EC

[liberalh8ter]

He’s right.

[Hardastarboard]

“I know this is a controversial view, but I’m willing to say it,” Alito told the Journal. “No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period.”

With respect, Justice Alito, it isn't a controversial view to those of us who have actually read and understand the Constitution - at all.

And, if the Congress tries to regulate the Supreme Court, the Court can fast track any lawsuits and overturn the law. Marbury v. Madison, stare decisis and all that.

Even justices as intellectually impaired as Ketanji Jackson-Browne should be able to understand that.

[Dilbert56]

SCOTUS should find a case involving a CongressCritter and add a Congressional Code of Ethics to its ruling.

[ProgressingAmerica]

Progressives always whine and buckle under pressure when the courts actually do their jobs and protect the Constitution of the United States. Usually, its scheming progressives that are doing the attacking.

The first annoyingly whiny high profile progressive who couldn't stand the court upholding the Constitution was Theodore Roosevelt himself. Right there at the beginning of the Progressive Era.

King Teddy the first hated, HATED when the court sided with the Constitution above collectivist progressive machinations, and he went out and bellyached about it constantly. Just like Chuck U Schumer, Teddy I couldn't rush out there and find a microphone fast enough when the latest "good job" was performed on the court.

To elitist king Teddy, upholding the Constitution was a form of corruption. Progressives don't change.