Generally, when Congress strips courts of jurisdiction, it does so by implementing broad, forwardlooking, statutory bars that insulate agency decisions or foreclose appeal. In response to the protracted litigation surrounding construction and operation of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, Congress passed a unique statutory provision which (1) granted all required approvals for the pipeline to proceed and (2) stripped every court’s jurisdiction to review the pipeline’s permit approvals. Simultaneously, the amendment granted the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit exclusive jurisdiction over all constitutional challenges to the jurisdiction stripping provision.

The casespecific impact of this legislation prompted much public concern and Supreme Court review. Petitioners unsuccessfully argued that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority by intervening to effect a specific outcome in a specific case Respondents prevailed on the counterargument that Congress merely made new underlying law without directing any decision of an Article III court. In this panel, academic commentators and amici from the case discussed the careful distinctions between amendments to substantive law and casespecific jurisdiction stripping, sharing insights on the separationofpowers questions both behaviors raise.

Featuring:

Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law

Prof. Daniel Farber, Sho Sato Professor of Law; Faculty Director, Center for Law, Energy, & the Environment, University of California, Berkeley

Rachel Jankowski, Assistant General Counsel, Office of General Counsel of the United States House of Representatives

Prof. Alan M. Trammell, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Arkansas School of Law

Moderator: Hon. Robert T. Numbers, II, United States Magistrate Judge, Eastern District of North Carolina


* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.