Minnesota Law Review

A Certain Mongrel Court: Congress’s Past Power and Present Potential To Reinforce the Supreme Court

The conventional view is that the constitutional mandate that “[t]he judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court” precludes legislation creating some sort of back-up Court. This reading is rooted in the idea that the word “one” in “one supreme Court” must be read to mean “one [indivisible].” If this were true, it would be necessary to amend the Constitution before Congress could act to back up the Supreme Court.

But early Congresses did not treat the Constitution’s “one supreme Court” language as an absolute bar to all subdivision of the structure of the Court. The most striking and long-lived example of a division of the Court is the one-Justice rump Supreme Court that sat at a special August Term from 1802 to 1838. This Court’s proceedings, records, and even an opinion by Chief Justice Roger Taney sitting as the one-Justice Court were treated as an integral part of the Supreme Court’s business.

The rump Court of 1802 and the constitutional provision of “one supreme Court” can be reconciled, and the result gives some clues to Congress’s heretofore unappreciated latitude to fiddle with the structure of the Court—perhaps to improve the continuity of its operations in the wake of calamity. None of this means that Congress should exercise whatever power it may have in this area, but it does mean that it has a responsibility to decide whether to act or not. Congress should not base or excuse inaction on an erroneous presumption of complete, uninterrupted, and constitutionally-compelled legislative impotence.

:: View PDF

News & Events

  • Fall Submissions Open – Headnotes

    The Minnesota Law Review: Headnotes fall submissions period is open. For more information, please visit our submissions page. Share this: on Twitter on Facebook on Google+

  • Vol. 97 Piece Quoted in Mother Jones Article

    A recent Mother Jones article predicting how the Roberts Court would resolve King v. Burwell draws on How Business Fares in the Supreme Court from Volume 97. You can read the article here. Share this: on Twitter on Facebook on Google+

  • Welcome to De Novo

    For nearly one hundred years, the Minnesota Law Review has been a leader amongst academic legal publications. When Professor Henry J. Fletcher launched the journal in 1917, his goal was simple. It was to “contribute a little something to the systematic growth of the whole law.” Since then, the Law [...]

  • Minnesota Law Review Alum Remembered 45 Years After Death

    Minnesota Law Review alumnus Tom Cranna was honored at the Annual Banquet this Spring, 45 years after his death. Mr. Cranna was remembered for his contributions to the journal, the school, and the positive impact he had on his family and friends. The Devil’s Lake Journal published a memorial which [...]

  • Follow MLR on Twitter!

    The Minnesota Law Review is proud to announce that we are now on Twitter. Follow us @MinnesotaLawRev for information and updates concerning the petition period and deadlines, the opening and closing of article submissions, our 2014 Symposium: Offenders in the Community, and all other news concerning our authors and publications. [...]


cforms contact form by delicious:days