Scholars have long treated the Exceptions Clause of Article III as a serious threat to the Supreme Court's central constitutional function: establishing definitive and uniform rules of federal law. This Article argues that scholars have overlooked an important function of the Clause. Congress has repeatedly used its broad "exceptions power" to facilitate, not to undermine, the Supreme Court's constitutional role. Drawing on insights from social science, this Article asserts that Congress has an incentive to use its control over federal jurisdiction to promote the Court's role in settling disputed federal questions. Notably, this argument has considerable historical support. When the Supreme Court's mandatory appellate docket grew to the point that it was unmanageable for a single tribunal, Congress responded by exercising its authority under the Exceptions Clause. Congress made "exceptions" to the Court's mandatory appellate jurisdiction and replaced it with discretionary review via writs of certiorari-precisely so that the Court could concentrate its limited resources on resolving important federal questions. Thus, contrary to conventional wisdom, Congress has often used its broad exceptions power to safeguard the Supreme Court's role in the constitutional scheme.

Academic libraries invest significant resources for developing collections of foreignlanguage materials, so it is important for librarians to understand how scholars use these materials. This study uses citation analysis to investigate how frequently scholars in the United States cite sources in languages other than English, taking German Studies as an example where one would expect to find multilingual scholarship. The results indicate that American scholars do incorporate foreign-language sources into their scholarly outputs, but the rate varies significantly between disciplines. Area studies collections should be developed to support discovery and use of diverse materials, including those in languages other than English.