Article III of the U.S. Constitution

Example 1

An ambassador from a foreign nation is walking to his office when, suddenly, a homeless man begs him for money. The ambassador declines to help him. The homeless man walks in front of the ambassador and pleads with him to spare a few dollars. “Out of my way!” yells the ambassador, and he pushes the man to the ground. If the homeless man sues the ambassador for battery, the U.S. Supreme Court will have original jurisdiction over the case, as Article III stipulates that the Court has original jurisdiction over cases involving ambassadors.

Example 2

While the president is running for re-election, the U.S. Supreme Court issues a ruling that strikes down one of the president’s policies. The unfavorable ruling contributes to the president’s defeat in the election. Outraged, the president persuades Congress to retaliate by passing a law decreasing the salaries of the Supreme Court justices who ruled against her administration. This law violates Article II, § 1, cl. 1, which establishes that a justice’s salary may not be decreased while they’re in office.

Example 3

Article III, § 2, cl. 3 states that, “The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.” When a car thief is prosecuted under a federal larceny charge, law enforcement pushes for the thief to be tried not in the state where the crime allegedly occurred, but in a nearby state with tougher penalties for larceny. This is unconstitutional, as the thief was entitled to be tried in the state where the crime allegedly occurred.

Case Examples

• Mootness of cases: Article III allows cases to be heard only so long as the issues are ripe for judicial consideration and the proper parties are bringing the claim. If a party brings a claim when they no longer have a vested interest in the outcome of a case, their claim is considered moot. Courts have found that “a case becomes moot—and therefore no longer a case or controversy for purposes of Article III of the Constitution—‘when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.’” Mangouras v. Squire Patton Boggs, 980 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2020). In Mangouras, a ship captain brought a claim for protection of certain information following his criminal trial in Spain for the sinking of a ship he had captained. Id. The Court of Appeals found that although the ship captain could not completely exclude the documents as his criminal trial had already ended, he could require the other parties to preserve the documents at issue. Id.
• Standing regarding civil rights: Whether a person has Article III standing is a matter of Congressional intent. For example, standing pursuant to the Fair Housing Act is extended to the limits of Article III because “Congress intended standing under the FHA to extend to the full limits of Article III, ... as long as the plaintiff suffers actual injury as a result of the defendant's conduct,” Parada v. Sandhill Shores Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc., 604 F. Supp. 3d 567, 577 (S.D. Tex. 2022). In Parada, a woman sued her homeowner’s association after it sought to construct a pedestrian walkway abutting her property. Id. The woman had late-onset Alzheimer’s disease, which made interacting with strangers extremely difficult and panic-inducing. Id. The defendants argued that Parada lacked standing to sue, as the walkway would not cause actual injury. Id. The Court disagreed and stated that Parada could sue under the Fair Housing Act. Id.

Key facts:

In recent years, federal court appointments have become one of America’s most controversial political issues. After President George W. Bush nominated conservative judges to the federal bench, congressional Democrats filibustered them. Senate Republicans did the same after President Barack Obama nominated liberal judges. In 2016, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to hold hearings on Obama’s nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court after Scalia died in office. McConnell justified this on the basis that, during an election year, a Supreme Court justice shouldn’t be appointed before the election. This allowed President Donald Trump to appoint Scalia’s successor, Neil Gorsuch, after he won the 2016 election. Ironically, McConnell pushed for the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett in September 2020, before the presidential election that November. In between the nominations of Gorsuch and Barrett, Trump’s second nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, faced contentious Senate hearings where he responded to allegations of sexual harassment. The hearings divided the country, with 46% of Americans believing that Kavanaugh should be confirmed, and 45% saying he shouldn’t.