Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 — Supreme Court Review Of State Court Decisions

prev | next

Article 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 Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the 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.

The Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction includes the authority to review decisions of both lower federal courts and state courts.[1](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-2/supreme-court-review-of-state-court-decisions#fn1art3 " For additional discussion of the relationship between state and federal courts, see . ") The current statute authorizing Supreme Court review of state court decisions allows the Court to review the judgments of “the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had.” [2](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-2/supreme-court-review-of-state-court-decisions#fn2art3 " 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a). See R. Stern & E. Gressman, Supreme Court Practice ch. 3 (6th ed. 1986). ") This is often the state’s court of last resort, but it may be an intermediate appellate court or a trial court, if its judgment is final under state law and cannot be reviewed by any state appellate court.[3](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-2/supreme-court-review-of-state-court-decisions#fn3art3 " Grovey v. Townsend, 295 U.S. 45, 47 (1935); Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, 62 (1960); Thompson v. City of Louisville, 362 U.S. 199, 202 (1960); Metlakatla Indian Cmty. v. Egan, 363 U.S. 555 (1960); Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514, 516, 517 (1968); Koon v. Aiken, 480 U.S. 943 (1987). In Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821), the judgment reviewed was that of the Quarterly Session Court for the Borough of Norfolk, Virginia. ") The Court has held that it may only review final state court judgments. Such a judgment “must be subject to no further review or correction in any other state tribunal; it must also be final as an effective determination of the litigation and not of merely interlocutory or intermediate steps therein. It must be the final word of a final court.” [4](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-2/supreme-court-review-of-state-court-decisions#fn4art3 " Market St. Ry. v. R.R. Comm’n, 324 U.S. 548, 551 (1945). See also San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. v. City of San Diego, 450 U.S. 621 (1981); Flynt v. Ohio, 451 U.S. 619 (1981); Minnick v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrections, 452 U.S. 105 (1981); Florida v. Thomas, 532 U.S. 774 (2001). The Court has developed a series of exceptions permitting review when the federal issue in the case has been finally determined but there are still proceedings to come in the lower state courts. Cox Broad. Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 476–487 (1975). See also Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana, 489 U.S. 46 (1989); Duquesne Light Co. v. Barasch, 488 U.S. 299, 304 (1989); NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 907 n.42 (1982). ") The object of this rule is to avoid piecemeal interference with state court proceedings; it promotes harmony by preventing federal intervention until the state court efforts are finally resolved.[5](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-2/supreme-court-review-of-state-court-decisions#fn5art3 " Republic Nat. Gas Co. v. Oklahoma, 334 U.S. 62, 67–69 (1948); Radio Station WOW v. Johnson, 326 U.S. 120, 123–24 (1945). ") For similar reasons, the Court requires that a party seeking to litigate a federal constitutional issue on appeal from a state court judgment must have raised the issue in state court at an appropriate time and with sufficient precision to allow the state court to consider it.[6](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-2/supreme-court-review-of-state-court-decisions#fn6art3 " New York ex rel. Bryant v. Zimmerman, 278 U.S. 63, 67 (1928); See also Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Crenshaw, 486 U.S. 71, 77 (1988); Webb v. Webb, 451 U.S. 493, 501 (1981). The same rule applies on habeas corpus petitions. E.g., Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270 (1972). ")

When the judgment of a state court rests on an adequate, independent ground based on state law, the Court will not review any federal question presented, even if the state court decided the federal question incorrectly.[7](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-2/supreme-court-review-of-state-court-decisions#fn7art3 " Murdock v. City of Memphis, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 590 (1875); Black v. Cutter Labs., 351 U.S. 292 (1956); Wilson v. Loew’s, Inc., 355 U.S. 597 (1958). ") The Court has stated that the reason for this rule is “obvious” and “is found in the partitioning of power between the state and Federal judicial systems and in the limitations of our own jurisdiction.” [8](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-2/supreme-court-review-of-state-court-decisions#fn8art3 " Herb v. Pitcairn, 324 U.S. 117, 125–26 (1945). Whereas declining to review judgments of state courts that rest on an adequate and independent determination of state law protects the sovereignty of states, the Court has emphasized that review of state court decisions that invalidate state laws based on interpretations of federal law, “far from undermining state autonomy, is the only way to vindicate it” because a correction of a state court’s federal errors necessarily returns power to the state government. Kansas v. Carr, 136 S. Ct. 633, 641 (2016) (quoting Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163, 184 (2006) (Scalia, J., concurring)). ") The Court further explained, “Our only power over state judgments is to correct them to the extent that they incorrectly adjudge federal rights. . . . We are not permitted to render an advisory opinion, and if the same judgment would be rendered by the state court after we corrected its views of Federal laws, our review could amount to nothing more than an advisory opinion.” [9](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-2/supreme-court-review-of-state-court-decisions#fn9art3 " Id. For additional discussion of advisory opinions, see . ") Thus, when deciding whether to review a state court judgment, the Court faces two interrelated decisions: (1) whether the state court judgment is based upon a nonfederal ground and (2) whether the nonfederal ground is adequate to support the state court judgment. It is the responsibility of the Court to determine for itself the answer to both questions.[10](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-2/supreme-court-review-of-state-court-decisions#fn10art3 " E.g., Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 366 (1990); NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 455 (1958). ")

The first question, whether a state court judgment is based on a nonfederal ground, may arise in several factual situations. A state court may have based its decision on two grounds, one federal and one nonfederal.[11](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-2/supreme-court-review-of-state-court-decisions#fn11art3 " Fox Film Corp. v. Muller, 296 U.S. 207 (1935); Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction, 368 U.S. 278 (1961). ") Alternatively, a state court may have based its decision solely on a nonfederal ground, but the federal ground may have been clearly raised.[12](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-2/supreme-court-review-of-state-court-decisions#fn12art3 " Wood v. Chesborough, 228 U.S. 672, 676–80 (1913). ") In other cases, both federal and nonfederal grounds may have been raised but the state court judgment is ambiguous or is without a written opinion stating the ground relied on.[13](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-2/supreme-court-review-of-state-court-decisions#fn13art3 " Lynch v. 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.S. 277, 281 (1956); Klinger v. Missouri, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 257, 263 (1872); cf. Dep’t of Mental Hygiene v. Kirchner, 380 U.S. 194 (1965). ") Or the state court may have decided the federal question although it could have based its ruling on an adequate, independent nonfederal ground.[14](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-2/supreme-court-review-of-state-court-decisions#fn14art3 " Poafpybitty v. Skelly Oil Co., 390 U.S. 365, 375–376 (1968). ") For the Supreme Court to review a state court decision, it is necessary that it appear from the record that a federal question was presented, that the disposition of that question was necessary to the determination of the case, and that the federal question was actually decided or that the judgment could not have been rendered without deciding it.[15](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-2/supreme-court-review-of-state-court-decisions#fn15art3 " Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Oklahoma, 303 U.S. 206 (1938); Raley v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 423, 434–437 (1959). When there is uncertainty about what the state court did, the previous practice was to remand for clarification. Minnesota v. Nat’l Tea Co., 309 U.S. 551 (1940); California v. Krivda, 409 U.S. 33 (1972). See Cal. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles v. Rios, 410 U.S. 425 (1973). The Court has adopted a presumption that when a state court decision fairly appears to rest on federal law or to be interwoven with federal law, and when the adequacy and independence of any possible state law ground is not clear from the face of the opinion, the Court will accept as the most reasonable explanation that the state court decided the case as it did because it believed that federal law required it to do so. If the state court wishes to avoid the presumption it must make clear by a plain statement in its judgment or opinion that discussed federal law did not compel the result, that state law was dispositive. Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983). See Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 261 n.7 (1989) (collecting cases); Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (applying the rule in a habeas case). ")

Several factors affect the answer to the second question, whether the nonfederal ground is adequate to support the decision. In order to preclude Supreme Court review, the nonfederal ground must be broad enough, wit