Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/74/506.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 07:01:16+00:00

Document:
' 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law or equity arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States,' &c.
'And be it further enacted, That so much of the act approved February 5, 1867, entitled 'An act to amend an act to establish the judicial courts of the United States, approved September 24, 1789,' as authorized an appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court to the Supreme Court of the United States, or the exercise of any such jurisdiction by said Supreme Court, on appeals which have been, or may hereafter be taken, be, and the same is hereby repealed.'- [74 U.S. 506, 509] The attention of the court was directed to this statute at the last term, but counsel having expressed a desire to be heard in argument upon its effect, and the Chief Justice being detained from his place here, by his duties in the Court of Impeachment, the cause was continued under advisement. Argument was now heard upon the effect of the repealing act.
'The case had been submitted to us before the passage of that act, and was beyond the legislative control. Our respect for the [74 U.S. 506, 511] General Assembly and Executive forbids the inference that they intended to instruct this court what to do or not to do whilst passing on the legal rights of parties in a special case already under advisement. The utmost that we can suppose is,' &c.
In The State v. Fleming,5 where the legislature of Tennessee directed two persons under indictment to be discharged, the Supreme Court of the State, declaring that 'the legislature has no power to interfere with the administration of justice in the courts,' treated the direction as void. In Lewis v. Webb,6 the Supreme Court of Maine declare that the legislature cannot dispense with any general law in favor of a particular case.
On the other hand, the general rule, supported by the best elementary writers,14 is, that 'when an act of the legislature is repealed, it must be considered, except as to transactions past and closed, as if it never existed.' And the effect of repealing acts upon suits under acts repealed, has been determined by the adjudications of this court. The subject was fully considered in Norris v. Crecker,15 and more recently in Insurance Company v. Ritchie. 16 In both of these cases it was held that no judgment could be rendered in a suit after the repeal of the act under which it was brought and prosecuted. [74 U.S. 506, 515] It is quite clear, therefore, that this court cannot proceed to pronounce judgment in this case, for it has no longer jurisdiction of the appeal; and judicial duty is not less fitly performed by declining ungranted jurisdiction than in exercising firmly that which the Constitution and the laws confer.
[ Footnote 1 ] See Ex parte McCardle, 6 Wallace, 318.
[ Footnote 2 ] Act of March 27, 1868, 15 Stat. at Large, 44.
[ Footnote 3 ] 13 Louisiana Annual, 175.
[ Footnote 4 ] 15 Pennsylvania State, 18.
[ Footnote 5 ] 7 Humphreys, 152.
[ Footnote 6 ] 3 Greenleaf, 326.
[ Footnote 7 ] 6 Wallace, 318.
[ Footnote 8 ] 5 Wallace, 544.
[ Footnote 9 ] Hollings worth v. Virginia, 3 Dallas, 378.
[ Footnote 10 ] 13 Howard, 429.
[ Footnote 11 ] Rex v. Justices of London, 3 Burrow, 1456; Yeaton v. United States, 5 Cranch, 281; Schooner Rachel v. United States, 6 Id. 329; United States v. Preston, 3 Peters, 57; Com. v. Marshall, 11 Pickering, 350.
[ Footnote 12 ] 6 Cranch, 312; Wiscart v. Dauchy, 3 Dallas, 321.
[ Footnote 13 ] Lanier v. Gallatas, 13 Louisiana Annual, 175; De Chastellux v. Fairchild, 15 Pennsylvania State, 18; The State v. Fleming, 7 Humphreys, 152, Lewis v. Webb, 3 Greenleaf, 326.
[ Footnote 14 ] Dwarris on Statutes, 538.
[ Footnote 15 ] 13 Howard, 429.
[ Footnote 16 ] 5 Wallace, 541.
[ Footnote 17 ] Ex parte McCardle, 6 Wallace, 324.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.