Federal Courts - Adequate and Independent Forum

[MillerTime15]

So I think I understand the general rule that SCOTUS cannot review the decision of a state supreme court case that was decided on both federal and state law grounds if the state law grounds are adequate and independent. I'm also good with the rule from Michigan v. Long, which says we presume that substantive state law grounds are not adequate and independent unless it is otherwise clear from the face of the opinion (i.e., plain statement rule).

However, I guess I'm confused as to how this gets applied. So in Michigan, there was a state law ground (the police officer's search was unconstitutional pursuant to Article 1, Section 11 of Michigan Constitution) and a federal law ground (the police officer's search was unconstitutional pursuant 4th Amendment of U.S. Constitution). SCOTUS held that the state law ground was not adequate and independent, so they could review. But couldn't they only review the federal law issue? If so, even after SCOTUS determined that the search didn't violate the U.S. Constitution, couldn't the Michigan Supreme Court have said that the search still violated the Michigan constitution so the judgment stands?

I guess I'm just confused as to whether SCOTUS was also overruling the state law grounds in Michigan, or just the federal law grounds.

[sd5289]

I'm also good with the rule from Michigan v. Long, which says we presume that substantive state law grounds are not adequate and independent unless it is otherwise clear from the face of the opinion (i.e., plain statement rule).

???

Um, that's not how I understand Michigan v. Long at all. The problem with the MI Supreme Ct's judgment (which reversed the trial Ct's denial of defendant's motion to suppress) was that it relied almost exclusively on Terry and the 4A. It barely mentioned the MI State Constitution in its judgment. The State's almost exclusive reliance on these federal grounds meant that the judgment did NOT rest on an adequate and independent state ground.

It was only in argument to SCOTUS that the state made a big deal of the MI State Constitution. The MI Supreme Court only made cursory references to it in its judgment, which meant SCOTUS has jurisdiction.

But couldn't they only review the federal law issue? If so, even after SCOTUS determined that the search didn't violate the U.S. Constitution, couldn't the Michigan Supreme Court have said that the search still violated the Michigan constitution so the judgment stands?

Hypothetically, yes, but that's not what the MI Supreme Ct relied on, and it's impossible to say that the outcome would have been the same had the State Ct relied on the State Constitution without actually having them review the question using the State Constitution. The State Ct relied exclusively on a federal ground in reversing the trial Ct's denial of the defendant's motion to suppress. Due to that exclusive reliance, SCOTUS has jurisdiction and because the search actually was reasonable under Terry and the 4A, the State Supreme Ct got it wrong (requiring reversal).

...just the federal law grounds.

Just federal.

[MillerTime15]

I'm also good with the rule from Michigan v. Long, which says we presume that substantive state law grounds are not adequate and independent unless it is otherwise clear from the face of the opinion (i.e., plain statement rule).

???

Um, that's not how I understand Michigan v. Long at all. The problem with the MI Supreme Ct's judgment (which reversed the trial Ct's denial of defendant's motion to suppress) was that it relied almost exclusively on Terry and the 4A. It barely mentioned the MI State Constitution in its judgment. The State's almost exclusive reliance on these federal grounds meant that the judgment did NOT rest on an adequate and independent state ground.

Yes, I agree with you on the facts and the specific holding, but I was more referring to the rule we take away from Michigan. My understanding of the rule is if a state supreme court seems to base its decision on both federal substantive law and state substantive law, the state supreme court must include a clear statement that the citations and mentions to federal law were just for persuasive authority. Otherwise, SCOTUS will presume that the state law grounds are not adequate and independent.

But couldn't they only review the federal law issue? If so, even after SCOTUS determined that the search didn't violate the U.S. Constitution, couldn't the Michigan Supreme Court have said that the search still violated the Michigan constitution so the judgment stands?

Hypothetically, yes, but that's not what the MI Supreme Ct relied on, and it's impossible to say that the outcome would have been the same had the State Ct relied on the State Constitution without actually having them review the question using the State Constitution. The State Ct relied exclusively on a federal ground in reversing the trial Ct's denial of the defendant's motion to suppress. Due to that exclusive reliance, SCOTUS has jurisdiction and because the search actually was reasonable under Terry and the 4A, the State Supreme Ct got it wrong (requiring reversal).

...just the federal law grounds.

Just federal.

Alright, I think I follow you on this part. That helps. Thanks!

[sd5289]

Yes, I agree with you on the facts and the specific holding, but I was more referring to the rule we take away from Michigan. My understanding of the rule is if a state supreme court seems to base its decision on both federal substantive law and state substantive law, the state supreme court must include a clear statement that the citations and mentions to federal law were just for persuasive authority. Otherwise, SCOTUS will presume that the state law grounds are not adequate and independent.

The bolded parts I agree with because I'm not sure Michigan v. Long extends to cases where State Supreme Ct's rely on both federal and state substantive law in their decisions because the State Ct in Michigan v. Long didn't do that, and that was precisely the problem. In the scenario you're talking about, the doctrine allows SCOTUS to dismiss for want of jurisdiction if those state substantive grounds are both adequate and independent...even if the State Supreme Ct got the federal law question wrong. In Michigan v. Long, the State Supreme Ct only relied on federal law (essentially) AND got it wrong.

I know what you're saying about State Supreme Ct's protecting their judgments by explicitly stating a state ground and that the federal law cited was just persuasive, but I think that applies when the Ct actually cites both federal and state authority in support of the judgment.

[MillerTime15]

Yes, I agree with you on the facts and the specific holding, but I was more referring to the rule we take away from Michigan. My understanding of the rule is if a state supreme court seems to base its decision on both federal substantive law and state substantive law, the state supreme court must include a clear statement that the citations and mentions to federal law were just for persuasive authority. Otherwise, SCOTUS will presume that the state law grounds are not adequate and independent.

The bolded parts I agree with because I'm not sure Michigan v. Long extends to cases where State Supreme Ct's rely on both federal and state substantive law in their decisions because the State Ct in Michigan v. Long didn't do that, and that was precisely the problem. In the scenario you're talking about, the doctrine allows SCOTUS to dismiss for want of jurisdiction if those state substantive grounds are both adequate and independent...even if the State Supreme Ct got the federal law question wrong. In Michigan v. Long, the State Supreme Ct only relied on federal law (essentially) AND got it wrong.

I know what you're saying about State Supreme Ct's protecting their judgments by explicitly stating a state ground and that the federal law cited was just persuasive, but I think that applies when the Ct actually cites both federal and state authority in support of the judgment.

Alright, that makes sense. I follow you now. Thanks for clarifying!