Legislation filed Tuesday by a Utah congressman would remove cases involving state anti-pornography laws from the jurisdiction of all federal courts -- including the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, pitched his "Pornography Jurisdiction Act" as a way to keep federal courts from hearing challenges to state laws regulating sexually explicit material.

His proposal would ban federal courts from hearing or deciding "a question of whether a state pornography law imposes a constitutionally invalid restriction on the freedom of expression."

"Federal courts have been creating a dangerous climate for our children by overturning important decisions by state courts to restrict pornography consumption and distribution within their borders," Cannon said in a statement. "My legislation simply lets states decide for themselves how they tackle this problem."

The concept involved in the legislation is known as "jurisdiction stripping" or "court stripping," and it's a hotly debated constitutional issue. It has its supporters, but there are also many critics who call the idea an end-run around the constitutional separation of powers.

Utah is facing a lawsuit -- pending in a federal district court -- challenging the Utah Child Protection Registry, which sets up a "no-email list" to protect children from receiving adult material.

Cannon cited a 2002 Supreme Court decision invalidating restrictions on "virtual" child pornography -- explicit material involving people who are adults but "appear to be minors." That case involved the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, a federal law.

The Free Speech Coalition, a consortium of adult entertainment companies, was involved in both cases. Spokesman Tom Hymes said Cannon's bill appears to be "a solution in search of a problem."

Still, he said the group is "concerned" because the proposal seeks to cut off access to higher courts.

"These are remedies that people really want -- not only in this particular case, obscenity, but any situation people might find themselves in," he said.

Cannon's primary challenge later this month that decides the fate of his re-election bid has nothing to do with the timing of the legislation, said spokesman Charles Isom.

"This is something that he's talked about," he said. "He expressed a lot of dismay when the Supreme Court overturned important legislation stopping porn."

John Jacob, Cannon's primary opponent, declined to answer a question about the possible political motivations of the bill. Jacob said he supports restrictions on pornography but questioned whether this tactic was a fruitful road to follow.

"I'm very much in favor of states' rights," Jacob said. "But I think that relates to the Congress and the president. I'm not sure that you can keep the courts from ruling.

"I don't see that as a feasible answer."

The idea is not a new one.

Several resolutions are pending in Congress that would take away the federal court system's jurisdiction over controversial social issues, including government-sanctioned prayer, the use of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, using "In God We Trust" as the national motto and provisions barring homosexuals from being married.

There is language in the Constitution discussing Congress' ability to set limits on the Supreme Court.

Article III, Section 2 says: "In all other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

But it's not quite that clear, said Glenn C. Smith, a Supreme Court expert and law professor at the California Western School of Law in San Diego.

"The validity is up for grabs," he said. "If it's an intrusion on the court's independence, it's one that at least arguably is justified by the words of the document."

Even so, there's a body of scholarship that says imposing a restriction in order to influence the outcome of a case or group of cases is an abuse of the system.

"Speaking for myself, jurisdiction stripping which seeks to erode or water down constitutional rights is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution," Smith said. "I'm in good company, but there's a fair amount of speculation involved."

He also said such legislation "disrespects state courts" because it assumes that certain rulings are more likely from state courts -- which could be the case, because state judges don't have lifetime appointments and are often elected, subjecting them to political pressures.

"You bet that over time you're going to like the substance of the decisions you get from state courts, without federal review," Smith said. "That's the cynical calculation involved in legislation like this."

OTHER BILLS

Several "jurisdiction stripping" bills are pending in Congress. Many of them contain the same or similar language to Cannon's recently introduced legislation on pornography cases: "No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question ..."

HR1070, Constitution Restoration Act of 2005: Would prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing a government official or agent's "acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government." LAST ACTION: Referred to a House subcommittee in April 2005.

HR1100, Marriage Protection Act of 2005: Seeks to keep federal courts and the Supreme Court from reviewing cases related to Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman. LAST ACTION: Referred to a House subcommittee in April 2005.

HR2389, Pledge Protection Act of 2005: The Supreme Court and federal courts would have no jurisdiction in cases interpreting the validity of Pledge of Allegiance. LAST ACTION: Referred to a House subcommittee in June 2005.

HR4364, Public Prayer Protection Act: The Supreme Court could not review any "establishment of religion" cases involving public prayer by a government agency, officer or agent. LAST ACTION: Referred to a House subcommittee in February.

HR4379, We the People Act: No federal court could review a state's laws or regulations relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion; any claim based on the right of privacy; and any equal protection claim involving the right of same-sex couples to get married. LAST ACTION: Referred to a House subcommittee in February.

HR4576, Safeguarding Our Religious Liberties Act: Federal courts could not rule on cases involving Ten Commandments displays, the Pledge of Allegiance or the National Motto. LAST ACTION: Referred to a House subcommittee in February.

This story appeared in The Daily Herald on page A1.