“The False Promise of Jurisdiction Stripping,” an essay coauthored by Professor Daniel Epps of WashULaw and Alan Trammell of W&L Law School has been published in the Columbia Law Review.
In the introduction, they write:
Jurisdiction stripping can still prove beneficial, but only in subtle and indirect ways. Congress can regulate jurisdiction to tweak the timing of judicial review, even if it cannot prevent review entirely. Jurisdiction stripping also provides Congress a way to signal to the public and the judiciary the importance of an issue—and, possibly, to pressure courts to change course. But these effects are contingent, indeterminate, and unreliable. As a tool to influence policy directly, jurisdiction stripping simply is not the power that its proponents hope or its critics fear.
