Editing United States v. Klein (section)

==Subsequent case law==
In ''Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Society'', 503 U.S. 429 (1992), environmental groups filed separate lawsuits against the United States Forest Service and alleged that harvesting timber in forests home to an endangered owl violated several federal statutes. While litigation was pending, Congress had passed compromise legislation that prevented harvesting in certain areas, but it also stated, "Congress hereby determines and directs that management [of the forests] according to subsections (b)(3) and (b)(5)... is adequate consideration for the purpose of meeting the statutory requirements that are the basis for [the two cases,]" which were identified by name and caption number. The Court of Appeals held that to be an unconstitutional intrusion on the judiciary's authority, based on ''Klein'' because it directed a particular result in both cases. The Supreme Court reversed and upheld the statutes because it found that they had amended the applicable law.<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Soc'y |vol=503 |reporter=U.S. |opinion=429 |pinpoint= |court=United States Supreme Court |date=1992 |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1596.ZS.html}}</ref>

In ''[[Bank Markazi v. Peterson]]'', 578 U.S. ___ (2016), the Supreme Court upheld a law that abrogated all defenses of a party (Bank Markazi) in a single case, which was identified by docket number, and directed that if certain criteria relating to ownership of a bank account were met, the money in the account would be used to pay compensation previous awarded by the courts against the bank. The bank argued that the court should rely on ''Klein'' to find that Congress had unconstitutionally directed the outcome of the case. The majority opinion found that more recent case law, particularly ''Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Society'', has reduced the precedent value of ''Klein'', but the Court clarified the role that ''Klein'' still has in American jurisprudence:

{{blockquote|Given the issue before the Court—Presidential pardons Congress sought to nullify by withdrawing federal-court jurisdiction—commentators have rightly read ''Klein'' to have at least this contemporary significance: Congress "may not exercise [its authority, including its power to regulate federal jurisdiction,] in a way that requires a federal court to act unconstitutionally." Meltzer, Congress, Courts, and Constitutional Remedies, 86 Geo. L. J. 2537, 2549 (1998). See also Tyler 112 ("Congress may not employ the courts in a way that forces them to become active participants in violating the Constitution.").|''Bank Markazi'', 578 U.S. at ___ (2016)(slip op. at 15)(fn. 19)<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Bank Markazi v. Peterson |vol=578 |reporter=U.S. |opinion=___|pinpoint=slip op. at 15 |court=United States Supreme Court |date=2016 |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-770_9o6b.pdf}}</ref>}}In [[Patchak v. Zinke|Patchak v. Zinke, 138 S. Ct. 897 (2018)]], the Supreme Court upheld a statute that stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction over claims related to a particular governmental decision to take particular piece of land into trust for the benefit of a Native American Tribe. The result of the statute was to terminate a particular, pending case in favor of the government. There was no majority opinion, but Justice Thomas, for a plurality, opined that Klein did not apply because Congress changed the law, requiring the court to apply the new law to the pending case. The plurality read Congress's power under the Exceptions Clause of the Constitution broadly, suggesting that Congress has nearly unlimited power to strip jurisdiction from the federal courts, even if the result is to terminate a pending case in favor of an identifiable party. In dissent, Chief Justice Roberts opined that not every statutory change "changes the law" within the meaning of Klein and that the Exceptions Clause does not permit Congress to withdraw jurisdiction to intervene in a particular pending case in a way that cuts out the role of the judiciary.<ref>[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-498_l5gm.pdf] Patchak v. Zinke, 138 S. Ct. 897 (2018).</ref>