A statute provides that all constitutional challenges concerning a federal health statute may be filed directly in the Supreme Court. The provision is:

A statute provides that all constitutional challenges concerning a federal health statute may be filed directly in the Supreme Court. The provision is:

• A. Constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause.
• B. Constitutional because Congress can define appellate jurisdiction.
• C. Constitutional because the judicial power extends to the Supreme Court under Article III.
• D. Unconstitutional because it infringes Article III's original jurisdiction constraints.

Answer: (D)

The key idea is how Article III divides the Supreme Court’s power into original versus appellate jurisdiction and what Congress can and cannot change about that division. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction only in a narrow set of cases—such as disputes involving ambassadors and other public ministers, consuls, or cases in which a state is a party. Everything else reaches the Court through the appellate path, after being filed in lower federal courts. Congress can regulate the Court’s appellate jurisdiction under the Exceptions Clause, but it cannot expand or create new original-jurisdiction categories for the Supreme Court. So a statute that lets all constitutional challenges to a federal health statute be filed directly in the Supreme Court would improperly enlarge the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond what Article III allows. That rearranges the constitutional structure by skipping the usual federal-court route and pulling a broad class of cases straight into the Court as original matters, which the Constitution forbids. The proper constitutional limit is that Congress may regulate appellate review, not extend the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to new kinds of cases.

The key idea is how Article III divides the Supreme Court’s power into original versus appellate jurisdiction and what Congress can and cannot change about that division. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction only in a narrow set of cases—such as disputes involving ambassadors and other public ministers, consuls, or cases in which a state is a party. Everything else reaches the Court through the appellate path, after being filed in lower federal courts. Congress can regulate the Court’s appellate jurisdiction under the Exceptions Clause, but it cannot expand or create new original-jurisdiction categories for the Supreme Court.

So a statute that lets all constitutional challenges to a federal health statute be filed directly in the Supreme Court would improperly enlarge the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond what Article III allows. That rearranges the constitutional structure by skipping the usual federal-court route and pulling a broad class of cases straight into the Court as original matters, which the Constitution forbids. The proper constitutional limit is that Congress may regulate appellate review, not extend the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to new kinds of cases.