Mullin v. Doe · ¶106
It makes no difference that the Miot respondents alleged a violation of the Constitution. As Justice Scalia put it, “What could possibly be the basis for” doubting Congress’s authority to bar judicial review of constitutional claims? Webster, 486 U. S., at 612 (dissenting opinion). “The very text of the Constitution refutes th[e] principle” that “all constitutional violations must be remediable in the courts.” Ibid. In some cases, a question of constitutional law is “textually committed” to adjudication solely by another branch. Nixon v. United States, 506 U. S. 224, 228 (1993); see, e.g., Art. I, §2, cl. 2 (setting the qualifications for House Members); §3, cl. 3 (setting qualifications for Senators); §5, cl. 1 (establishing that “[e]ach House shall be the Judge of the . . . Qualifications of its own Members,” not any court). In other contexts, the “lack of judicially discoverable and…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.