Also known as: independent and adequate state grounds doctrine · adequate and independent state grounds doctrine · IASG doctrine · adequate and independent state grounds
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A rule of appellate jurisdiction under which the Supreme Court presumes it has authority to review a state court judgment that may rest on federal law. The presumption applies unless the state court clearly and expressly states that its judgment rests on state-law grounds independent of federal law and adequate to support the result.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Horizon Wireless challenged a state fine for throttling data to a news site, citing both the state constitution and federal speech protections. The state supreme court affirmed in a single discussion treating the state and federal standards as coextensive without declaring that state law alone decided the case. Horizon seeks Supreme Court review. The Court presumes jurisdiction because the opinion lacks a clear statement of independent state grounds.
Stop the Beach Renourishment challenged a state beach restoration rule that altered shoreline property lines. The state court upheld the rule after discussing both state property doctrines and federal takings standards in one blended analysis. The opinion never stated that state law independently controlled the outcome. The Supreme Court presumes jurisdiction to reach the federal question.
Former felons denied the vote under state law sued, raising both state equal protection claims and federal voting rights arguments. The state high court rejected the challenge in an opinion that intertwined state and federal analysis without declaring an independent state basis. The petitioners seek Supreme Court review. The Court presumes jurisdiction because the opinion fails to state clearly that state law alone supported the judgment.
A student charged under a state gun-free school zone statute argued that the law exceeded state and federal commerce power. The state supreme court upheld the statute after discussing both state police power and federal commerce clause precedents in a single section. The opinion contained no express statement that state law independently resolved the case. The Supreme Court presumes jurisdiction to review the federal issue.
A prosecutor used peremptory strikes against minority jurors in a state criminal trial. The defendant raised both state and federal equal protection claims. The state supreme court affirmed the conviction after blending state and federal analysis of the strikes without declaring that state law alone controlled. The defendant petitions for Supreme Court review. The Court presumes jurisdiction because the opinion lacks a clear statement of independent state grounds.
A suspect gave statements after receiving Miranda warnings but before consulting counsel. The state supreme court admitted the statements after discussing both state constitutional protections and federal Miranda doctrine in one blended opinion. The court never stated that state law independently supported admission. The defendant seeks Supreme Court review. The Court presumes jurisdiction because the opinion fails to announce an independent state ground.
The Supreme Court presumes jurisdiction when the state court opinion does not clearly and expressly state that its judgment rests on state-law grounds independent of federal law. The presumption arises because the Court will not guess its way out of jurisdiction when the basis of the decision 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. ,…
…have announced a number of principles in order to help us determine whether various forms of references to state law constitute adequate and independent state grounds
…C. J.) (expressing view on merits even though writ was dismissed as improvidently granted because state-court judgment rested on adequate and independent state grounds
…from the time of its foundation has adhered to the principle that it will not review judgments of state courts that rest on
A state court must clearly and expressly state that its judgment rests on state-law grounds that are independent of federal law and adequate to support the result. Mere discussion of state law or citation to a state constitution is insufficient if the opinion interweaves state and federal analysis.
Supporting sources
No. The jurisdictional question is resolved by examining the face of the state court opinion. If the opinion is ambiguous and lacks a clear statement of independent state grounds, the Supreme Court presumes jurisdiction without requiring further clarification from the state court.
Supporting sources
The Court treats the opinion as ambiguous and presumes jurisdiction. Alternating references without an express disclaimer that state law alone controls triggers the presumption that the decision rests at least in part on federal law.
Supporting sources