T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation · ¶73

The arguments before the Court concerned the nature of original and appellate jurisdiction. Counsel for Bollman argued that the Judiciary Act gave “this court the power to grant writs of habeas corpus,” and that “congress had authority, by the constitution,” to give the Court such power. 4 Cranch, at 84–85. But, this second point, he argued, depended on “whether this power or jurisdiction be in its nature original or appellate.” Id., at 85. He conceded that, if granting the writ would be an exercise of original jurisdiction, then Congress could not give this Court the power to issue the writ. Id., at 85–86. “This principle,” he acknowledged, had been “established by the case of Marbury v. Madison.” Id., at 86. Following Marbury, he argued that the “criterion which distinguishes appellate from original jurisdiction, is that it revises and corrects the decisions of another tribunal.” 4…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.