Can a Federal Court Review a State Court Decision

Commodity III, Section 2, Clause 2:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Courtroom shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases earlier mentioned, the supreme Court shall accept appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations equally the Congress shall make.

In add-on to the constitutional issues presented by § 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and subsequent enactments,i (a), which provides that review by writ of certiorari is available where the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States is fatigued in question or where the validity of a statute of any land is drawn in question on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the Usa, or where any title, correct, privilege, or immunity is especially set up or claimed under the Constitution or the treaties or statutes of, or whatever commission held or authorisation exercised under, the United States. Prior to 1988, there was a right to mandatory appeal in cases in which a state courtroom had institute invalid a federal statute or treaty or in which a state court had upheld a state statute contested under the Constitution, a treaty, or a statute of the United States. See the Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 929. The stardom between certiorari and entreatment was abolished by the Human action of June 27, 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-352, § three, 102 Stat. 662. questions accept continued to arise apropos review of state courtroom judgments which go direct to the nature and extent of the Supreme Courtroom'south appellate jurisdiction. Because of the sensitivity of federal-country relations and the delicate nature of the matters presented in litigation touching upon them, jurisdiction to review decisions of a state courtroom is dependent in its exercise not only upon ascertainment of the being of a federal question but upon a showing of exhaustion of country remedies and of the certitude of the state judgment. Considering the application of these standards to concrete facts is neither mechanical nor nondiscretionary, the Justices have often been divided over whether these requisites to the exercise of jurisdiction have been met in specific cases submitted for review by the Court.

The Court is empowered to review the judgments of "the highest courtroom of a State in which a decision could be had." ii (a). Come across , Supreme Court Do ch. 3 (6th ed. 1986). This will unremarkably be the state'southward courtroom of concluding resort, but it could well be an intermediate appellate court or even a trial court if its judgment is final under state law and cannot exist f reviewed past any land appellate court.3 The review is of a concluding judgment below. "Information technology must be subject to no further review or correction in any other country tribunal; information technology must likewise be final every bit an effective conclusion of the litigation and non of only interlocutory or intermediate steps therein. It must be the terminal word of a final court." 4 The object of this rule is to avoid piecemeal interference with state court proceedings; it promotes harmony by preventing federal assumption of a function in a controversy until the state court efforts are finally resolved.5 For similar reasons, the Courtroom requires that a political party seeking to litigate a federal constitutional consequence on entreatment of a state courtroom judgment must have raised that issue with sufficient precision to have enabled the state courtroom to have considered it and she must take raised the issue at the advisable time below.6

When the judgment of a state court rests on an acceptable, independent conclusion of state police, the Court volition not review the resolution of the federal questions decided, fifty-fifty though the resolution may be in mistake.7 "The reason is so obvious that information technology has rarely been idea to warrant statement. It is found in the sectionalisation of power between the state and Federal judicial systems and in the limitations of our own jurisdiction. Our simply power over state judgments is to correct them to the extent that they incorrectly adjudge federal rights. And our ability is to correct wrong judgments, not to revise opinions. We are not permitted to render an informational opinion, and if the aforementioned judgment would exist rendered by the land court after nosotros corrected its views of Federal laws, our review could amount to nothing more than an advisory stance." eight (Scalia, J., concurring)). The Court is faced with two interrelated decisions: whether the state court judgment is based upon a nonfederal basis and whether the nonfederal ground is adequate to support the state court judgment. It is, of course, the responsibleness of the Court to determine for itself the reply to both questions.nine

The first question, whether at that place is a nonfederal ground, may be raised by several factual situations. A state courtroom may accept based its decision on ii grounds, ane federal, ane nonfederal.10 It may have based its decision solely on a nonfederal ground but the federal ground may have been clearly raised.11 Both federal and nonfederal grounds may take been raised merely the state courtroom judgment is ambiguous or is without written opinion stating the ground relied on.12 Or the state court may take decided the federal question although it could have based its ruling on an adequate, independent non-federal ground.xiii In whatsoever event, it is essential for purposes of review by the Supreme Court that it appear from the record that a federal question was presented, that the disposition of that question was necessary to the conclusion of the example, that the federal question was actually decided or that the judgment could non take been rendered without deciding information technology.xiv

Several factors affect the answer to the 2d question, whether the nonfederal ground is adequate. In social club to preclude Supreme Court review, the nonfederal ground must exist broad enough, without reference to the federal question, to sustain the state court judgment;15 it must be contained of the federal question;xvi and it must be tenable.17 Rejection of a litigant's federal claim by the state court on country procedural grounds, such as failure to tender the issue at the advisable time, will normally preclude Supreme Court review every bit an adequate contained land ground,18 so long every bit the local process does non discriminate against the raising of federal claims and has non been used to stifle a federal claim or to evade vindication of federal rights.nineteen (dissenting opinion).

Footnotes

1

On § 25, run into "Judicial Review and National Supremacy," supra. The present statute is 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a), which provides that review by writ of certiorari is available where the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States is fatigued in question or where the validity of a statute of any land is fatigued in question on the basis of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, or where whatever title, right, privilege, or amnesty is especially set up or claimed under the Constitution or the treaties or statutes of, or any commission held or authority exercised under, the Usa. Prior to 1988, there was a right to mandatory appeal in cases in which a state court had constitute invalid a federal statute or treaty or in which a land court had upheld a state statute contested under the Constitution, a treaty, or a statute of the United States. See the Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 929. The stardom between certiorari and appeal was abolished by the Act of June 27, 1988, Pub. Fifty. No. 100-352, § 3, 102 Stat. 662.

2

28 U.S.C. § 1257(a). See R. Stern & Eastward. Gressman, Supreme Court Practice ch. 3 (sixth ed. 1986).

three

Grovey five. Townsend, 295 U.S. 45, 47 (1935); Talley 5. California, 362 U.S. 60, 62 (1960); Thompson v. City of Louisville, 362 U.S. 199, 202 (1960); Metlakatla Indian Community v. Egan, 363 U.South. 555 (1960); Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514, 516, 517 (1968); Koon 5. Aiken, 480 U.South. 943 (1987) . In Cohens 5. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821), the judgment reviewed was that of the Quarterly Session Court for the Borough of Norfolk, Virginia.

4

Market Street Ry. 5. Railroad Comm'n, 324 U.South. 548, 551 (1945). Come across also San Diego Gas & Electric Co. five. City of San Diego, 450 U.S. 621 (1981); Flynt five. Ohio, 451 U.S. 619 (1981); Minnick v. California Dep't of Corrections, 452 U.S. 105 (1981); Florida v. Thomas, 532 U.Southward. 774 (2001). The Courtroom has developed a series of exceptions permitting review when the federal issue in the case has been finally determined merely at that place are still proceedings to come in the lower state courts. Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.Southward. 469, 476–487 (1975). See also Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana, 489 U.Due south. 46 (1989); Duquesne Light Co. v. Barasch, 488 U.South. 299, 304 (1989); NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 907 north.42 (1982).

5

Republic Natural Gas Co. v. Oklahoma, 334 U.Due south. 62, 67–69 (1948); Radio Station WOW v. Johnson, 326 U.South. 120, 123–24 (1945).

half-dozen

New York ex rel. Bryant five. Zimmerman, 278 U.S. 63, 67 (1928); Encounter too Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Crenshaw, 486 U.Southward. 71, 77 (1988); Webb v. Webb, 451 U.S. 493, 501 (1981). The same rule applies on habeas corpus petitions. E.g., Picard 5. Connor, 404 U.S. 270 (1972).

7

Murdock v. City of Memphis, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 590 (1875); Black v. Cutter Laboratories, 351 U.South. 292 (1956); Wilson v. Loew's, Inc., 355 U.S. 597 (1958).

8

Herb v. Pitcairn, 324 U.South. 117, 125–26 (1945). Whereas declining to review judgments of land courts that remainder on an acceptable and independent determination of country law protects the sovereignty of states, the Court has emphasized that review of land court decisions that invalidate state laws based on interpretations of federal police force, "far from undermining state autonomy, is the only way to vindicate it" because a correction of a country court'southward federal errors necessarily returns power to the state regime. See Kansas five. Carr, 577 U.Due south. ___, No. 14-449, sideslip op. at 9 (2016)AN (quoting Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163, 184 (2006) (Scalia, J., concurring)).

9

E.g., Howlett 5. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 366 (1990); NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.Southward. 449, 455 (1958).

ten

Fox Film Corp. five. Muller, 296 U.South. 207 (1935); Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction, 368 U.S. 278 (1961).

11

Forest 5. Chesborough, 228 U.Southward. 672, 676–80 (1913).

12

Lynch 5. New York ex rel. Pierson, 293 U.S. 52, 54–55 (1934); Williams v. Kaiser, 323 U.S. 471, 477 (1945); Durley v. Mayo, 351 U.Southward. 277, 281 (1956); Klinger v. Missouri, 80 U.Southward. (13 Wall.) 257, 263 (1872); cf. Department of Mental Hygiene v. Kirchner, 380 U.S. 194 (1965).

13

Poafpybitty v. Skelly Oil Co., 390 U.S. 365, 375–376 (1968).

xiv

Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. five. Oklahoma, 303 U.S. 206 (1938); Raley v. Ohio, 360 U.Due south. 423, 434–437 (1959). When there is uncertainty nearly what the state court did, the usual practice was to remand for clarification. Minnesota v. National Tea Co., 309 U.Southward. 551 (1940); California 5. Krivda, 409 U.Southward. 33 (1972). See California Dept. of Motor Vehicles 5. Rios, 410 U.S. 425 (1973). Now, however, in a controversial decision, the Court has adopted a presumption that when a state court decision fairly appears to rest on federal constabulary or to be interwoven with federal law, and when the capability and independence of any possible state law basis is not clear from the face of the opinion the Court will accept equally the nigh reasonable explanation that the state court decided the case every bit it did because it believed that federal law required it to exercise so. If the state court wishes to avert the presumption it must brand articulate past a patently statement in its judgment or stance that discussed federal law did non compel the upshot, that state law was dispositive. Michigan v. Long, 463 U.Due south. 1032 (1983). See Harris 5. Reed, 489 U.Southward. 255, 261 n.7 (1989) (collecting cases); Coleman 5. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (applying the rule in a habeas case).

15

Murdock 5. City of Memphis, 87 U.S. (xx Wall.) 590, 636 (1875). A new state rule cannot be invented for the occasion in order to defeat the federal claim. E.g., Ford five. Georgia, 498 U.S. 411, 420–425 (1991).

16

Enterprise Irrigation Dist. 5. Farmers' Common Culvert Co., 243 U.S. 157, 164 (1917); Ivanhoe Irrigation Dist. 5. McCracken, 357 U.Due south. 275, 290 (1958).

17

Enterprise Irrigation Dist. v. Farmers' Common Canal Co., 243 U.S. 157, 164 (1917); Ward v. Dearest County, 253 U.Southward. 17, 22 (1920); Staub five. Metropolis of Baxley, 355 U.S. 313 (1958).

18

Beard v. Kindler, 558 U.S. ___, No. 08-992, slip op. (2009) (firmly established procedural dominion adequate state footing fifty-fifty though rule is discretionary). Accord, Walker v. Martin, 562 ___, No. 09-996, skid op. (2010). See as well Nickel v. Cole, 256 U.Southward. 222, 225 (1921); Wolfe five. North Carolina, 364 U.S. 177, 195 (1960). But run across Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22 (1923); Dark-brown v. Western Ry. of Alabama, 338 U.South. 294 (1949).

19

Davis 5. Wechsler, 263 U.Due south. 22, 24–25 (1923); NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 455–458 (1958); Barr v. Metropolis of Columbia, 378 U.S. 146, 149 (1964). This rationale probably explains Henry five. Mississippi, 379 U.S. 443 (1965). Encounter also in the criminal area, Edelman five. California, 344 U.S. 357, 362 (1953) (dissenting opinion); Chocolate-brown v. Allen, 344 U.Southward. 443, 554 (1953) (dissenting opinion); Williams v. Georgia, 349 U.S. 375, 383 (1955); Monger five. Florida, 405 U.S. 958 (1972) (dissenting opinion).

nicolwitern.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-2/supreme-court-review-of-state-court-decisions

Share :