[Lurking Libertarian]

Has any law ever been written that included in it a provision that the Supreme Court did not have the athority to review the constitutionality of that very law? I've never heard of one, but hey, it wouldn't be the first time.

Once that I know of-- one of the Reconstruction Era bills punishing ex-Confederates in some way (I don't remember the details). The Supreme Court upheld the limitation on its own jurisdiction.

The reason this hasn't been done more often is that there is a huge practical problem with passing a law and saying the Supreme Court can't review it: You need some court to prosecute people for violating the law, and if that court finds the law unconstitutional, the government can't appeal to the Supreme Court.

[BikerNYC]

The reason this hasn't been done more often is that there is a huge practical problem with passing a law and saying the Supreme Court can't review it: You need some court to prosecute people for violating the law, and if that court finds the law unconstitutional, the government can't appeal to the Supreme Court.

I see. So the Congress can limit the jurisdiction of SCOTUS with regard to any particular law, but not the lower courts, and since a District Court or Circuit Court might find the law unconstitutional, there would be no court left to overturn that decision.

I guess the Congress could not declare the constitutionality of a law off limits for any federal court (thankfully, in a way).