Also known as: adequate state grounds doctrine · adequate and independent state grounds doctrine · adequate and independent state grounds
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A judge-made principle that bars Supreme Court review of a state court judgment when the decision rests on adequate and independent state law grounds. The doctrine applies only when the state court clearly and expressly states that its judgment rests on state-law grounds independent of federal law. Absent such a statement, the Supreme Court presumes jurisdiction and treats the decision as resting on federal law.
Azure Solutions challenged a city drone ordinance in state court. The state supreme court upheld the ordinance after alternating between the state home-rule charter and federal airspace rules without declaring that state law alone controlled the result. Azure petitions the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court presumes jurisdiction because the state opinion lacks a clear statement of independent state grounds.
Adam Anderson sued the state environmental agency after beach-renourishment rules eliminated his oceanfront access. The state supreme court upheld the rules by citing both the state constitution's property provisions and federal takings precedents without expressly disclaiming federal grounds. Anderson seeks Supreme Court review. The Court presumes jurisdiction over the federal claim.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Aaron Adams moved to suppress statements made after police continued questioning following his request for counsel. The state supreme court affirmed admission by referencing both state constitutional protections and federal Miranda doctrine without stating that state law alone supported the holding. Adams petitions for certiorari. The Supreme Court presumes jurisdiction.
Albert Allen, a convicted felon, sued to restore voting rights under state law. The state supreme court upheld permanent disenfranchisement after discussing both the state constitution and federal equal-protection standards without declaring an independent state ground. Allen seeks Supreme Court review. The Court presumes jurisdiction.
Adrian Aguilar was convicted under a state statute modeled on federal gun-free school zone laws. The state supreme court upheld the conviction by analyzing both state police power and federal commerce clause limits without clearly stating that state law alone decided the case. Aguilar petitions the Supreme Court. The Court presumes jurisdiction.
Arthur Abrams challenged the prosecutor's peremptory strikes as racially discriminatory. The state supreme court affirmed the conviction after citing both the state constitution and federal Batson standards without expressly resting the judgment on independent state grounds. Abrams seeks Supreme Court review. The Court presumes jurisdiction.
The state court must clearly and expressly state that its judgment rests on state-law grounds independent of federal law. Without that statement, the Supreme Court presumes jurisdiction.
Supporting sources
No. When a state court opinion interweaves state and federal reasoning without a clear statement of independent state grounds, the Supreme Court presumes the decision rests on federal law and exercises jurisdiction.
Supporting sources
The Supreme Court still presumes jurisdiction unless the state court expressly states that the judgment rests on independent state grounds and disclaims reliance on federal law.
Supporting sources
No. The rule is a presumption rule, not a certification requirement. The Supreme Court presumes jurisdiction when the state opinion is ambiguous.
Supporting sources
…rules for determining the primacy of state law, see, e. g. , Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins , 304 U. S. 64 (1938), the doctrine of adequate and independent state grounds, see, e. g. , Murdock v. Memphis , 20 Wall. 590 (1875); Michigan v. Long , 463 U. S. 1032 (1983), the whole jurisprudence of pre-emption, see, e. g. , Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp. ,…