A statute provides that every alien who is a citizen of an enemy nation must immediately leave the United States or face deportation, and it grants the Supreme Court original and exclusive jurisdiction over challenges to the statute. Is this statute constitutional?

A statute provides that every alien who is a citizen of an enemy nation must immediately leave the United States or face deportation, and it grants the Supreme Court original and exclusive jurisdiction over challenges to the statute. Is this statute constitutional?

• A. No, because the statute does not fall within Article III's original jurisdiction categories.
• B. No, because it violates equal protection of the Fifth Amendment.
• C. Yes, because Congress has power to regulate naturalization among Article I powers.
• D. No, because Article III allows exceptions to appellate jurisdiction.

Answer: (A)

The key idea is that Article III sets a very narrow set of cases that can rise directly to the Supreme Court in original jurisdiction. The Constitution enumerates cases like disputes between states, suits involving a state as a party, suits between citizens of different states, and cases affecting ambassadors and other public ministers. It does not give Congress the power to vest the Supreme Court with original jurisdiction over challenges to a statute itself simply because they want to shield or centralize the forum. So a statute that says every alien of an enemy nation must leave and that the Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear challenges to that statute runs into the structure of Article III. Congress can regulate appellate jurisdiction with the Exceptions Clause, but it cannot expand the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond the enumerated categories. That makes the statute unconstitutional on its jurisdictional flaw. Why the other ideas aren’t the right basis here: arguing from equal protection or Fifth Amendment concerns misplaces the issue—the question is about which court can hear the case, not the substantive rights of the aliens. Relying on Congress’s power over naturalization doesn’t authorize broad original-jurisdiction grants outside Article III’s enumerated categories. And while it’s true that Article III allows exceptions to appellate jurisdiction, that permission does not justify creating exclusive original jurisdiction for challenges to statutes; the mechanism and limits are different.

The key idea is that Article III sets a very narrow set of cases that can rise directly to the Supreme Court in original jurisdiction. The Constitution enumerates cases like disputes between states, suits involving a state as a party, suits between citizens of different states, and cases affecting ambassadors and other public ministers. It does not give Congress the power to vest the Supreme Court with original jurisdiction over challenges to a statute itself simply because they want to shield or centralize the forum.

So a statute that says every alien of an enemy nation must leave and that the Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear challenges to that statute runs into the structure of Article III. Congress can regulate appellate jurisdiction with the Exceptions Clause, but it cannot expand the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond the enumerated categories. That makes the statute unconstitutional on its jurisdictional flaw.

Why the other ideas aren’t the right basis here: arguing from equal protection or Fifth Amendment concerns misplaces the issue—the question is about which court can hear the case, not the substantive rights of the aliens. Relying on Congress’s power over naturalization doesn’t authorize broad original-jurisdiction grants outside Article III’s enumerated categories. And while it’s true that Article III allows exceptions to appellate jurisdiction, that permission does not justify creating exclusive original jurisdiction for challenges to statutes; the mechanism and limits are different.