The Supreme Court of the United States of America is the highest court in the country. Its decisions are binding to subordinate courts. In addition, it is the only court established by the Constitution of the United States of America. It was intended by the Federalists to serve as a final arbiter to legal issues. However, the court’s jurisdiction is lean and mostly discretional. Within the same context, a few instances suffice where the court must hear a case. These inform the first part of this paper’s discussion.
One instance where the court must hold hearing relates to when there is a dispute between states. Disputes could be between states or between states and the federal government. For instance the case of United States v Texas involved the Federal Government against Texas State. In these cases, the court has original and absolute jurisdiction.
Secondly, the court must hear cases of appeals arising from both state and federal courts. However, for these appeals to be heard compulsorily they must satisfy some if not all of the following conditions; it must involve a constitutional question or a federal law or the federal government has to be a party. Ideally, it should be noted that the court was intended to hear only appeals from the federal courts. However, the Judiciary Act, 1789 expanded the appellate jurisdiction to include state court decisions. Lastly, presidential petitions must be heard by the court. These petitions could be placed under the ambit of Federal Constitutional questions, interpretations and laws. A good instance where such was exercised was Gore v Bush, a case that is considered controversial.
However, it must be appreciated that the appellate role of the court is largely discretionary and limited. Section 2 of Article 3 of the US Constitution gives a jurisdictional discretion to the court on a number of matters. Some of these include discretion over cases involving diplomats, states, federal statutes and constitutional issues. This expansionary discretion is rarely applied. Instead, the court limits exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. This paper posits that this jurisdiction is too limited and has been stretched too thin. The court needs to capitalize on the Constitutional provisions to flex its muscle despite the risk of accusations of judicial activism which in many cases is unfettered.
While the Constitution extends the power of the Court to all cases in Law and Equity, the court has chosen to approach exercise of its power in a limited nature. Some of the conditions invoked to prevent an expanded appellate process includes the fact that cases must fall under one of the following to receive leave for hearing: diversity of citizenship which refers to the fact of litigants being members of different states which includes foreign states or, a federal question that must be resolved for purposes of developing jurisprudence. This must be divorced from moot cases where the court refuses to offer advisory opinion and the last in the list being the fact that the federal government has to be a party. This limited approach has seen a situation where the court is unable to intervene even in matters where it ought to have jurisdiction. In addition, the Eleventh Amendment can be seen an attempt to reduce the appellate jurisdiction of the Court has it prohibits the court from exercising jurisdiction in cases where citizens sue states. The fact that this privilege can be waived by the state is not a sufficient cure given that states have the character of protecting their interest.
In conclusion, it is this paper’s position that the Supreme Court needs to expand its rather limited appellate jurisdiction so as to be able to administer justice to the common citizen.
Work Cited
Schaffner, Brian F. Politics. New York: Cengage Learning, 2010.
