State courts and the Supreme Court

DEFINITION: Courts that can hear cases subject to state constitutions and laws, in contrast to federal courts, established under Article III of the US Constitution, which hear cases involving federal law.

SIGNIFICANCE: Under the concept of judicial federalism, a hierarchical relationship exists between state courts and federal courts, including the Supreme Court, in which discrepancies between state law and federal law are resolved in favor of federal law.

Much of the judicial activity in the United States falls within the jurisdiction of state courts, which range from traffic and police courts to state supreme courts. State courts hear cases that do not directly involve federal laws. However, underlying every decision such courts reach is the mandate that there be no violation of the plaintiffs' rights as guaranteed by the US Constitution, which provides for a national court system.

The Supreme Court and State Courts

The sovereignty of states is a fundamental part of the US system of government. States’ rights have been zealously guarded since the nation’s inception. Even those who favor a strong central government are generally convinced of the necessity of permitting states to reflect their various populations' cultural and societal norms.

Under the independent and adequate state grounds doctrine articulated in Murdock v. Memphis (1875), the Supreme Court must accept the interpretation by state courts of the constitutions of their particular states, although such interpretations must not violate the Constitution. In all matters where state laws conflict with federal mandates, judges are enjoined by law to uphold the federal mandates.

The Supreme Court does not review the decisions of state courts unless federal questions are introduced early in the proceedings so that such questions can be heard at every level of the state’s jurisdiction. The Court also denies petitions for the appeal of cases involving federal questions if the petitioners have failed to comply with the procedures and policies of the state courts. Further, the Court has ruled that it will consider no habeas corpus petitions until the petitioners have exhausted all remedies available to them at the state level.

The Court has final authority in accepting or rejecting cases that petitioners wish to bring before it. It accepts fewer than 10 percent of the state court cases it is asked to review. Some cases that come before the Court proceed from lower federal court decisions in cases that originated in state courts and later were transferred into the federal venue because they involved federal law.

Judicial Federalism

Relations between state courts and federal courts, including the Supreme Court, are referred to as judicial federalism. This concept establishes a hierarchical structure of appeals and redress. The state courts, although they are established by the constitutions of their states and function under the legal codes of those states, are required under the law to give precedence to federal law if it conflicts with state law. The US Constitution prevails in cases where a state constitution conflicts with it in some way.

Judicial federalism was established during John Marshall’s term as chief justice of the Court from 1801 to 1835. Resisting strong opposition from some state courts in the early years of the fledgling republic, Marshall fought for and won the right of the Court to be the final arbiter in deciding whether state laws were consistent with the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States.

Although the Court has the ultimate and decisive power in adjudicating legal matters arising from state court decisions, it has generally been scrupulous in observing comity, or the courtesy that one jurisdiction accords to another by upholding its laws. Comity is not legally imposed on the Court but has arisen because of its respect and historical deference to state courts. In some cases, such as Commonwealth v. Aves (1836), comity has been set aside. In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, a state that prohibited slavery, released an enslaved individual brought from Louisiana to Massachusetts by a visitor. The Court found in favor of Massachusetts, rejecting arguments that this northern state should accord comity to the slave laws of Louisiana.

Division of Labor

From the nation’s beginnings until about 1920, state and federal courts existed side by side largely to distribute the judicial responsibilities and the labor involved in them in what seemed the most reasonable and manageable fashion. State courts were to enforce the laws and constitutional guarantees of the various states. Federal courts were to enforce the guarantees of the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights. The duties and jurisdiction of the two court systems were clearly, if somewhat informally, defined, and for the most part, each system enjoyed considerable autonomy.

Between 1920 and 1950, however, the Supreme Court gradually increased its supervision of state courts. It nullified the findings of several state court decisions, particularly those from southern states that reached the appellate level related to the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantees of due process and equal protection under the law.

The Court maneuvered around petitions from imprisoned individuals convicted in state courts and sought the protection of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments that federal defendants received. Rather than considering such cases in the light of the amendments cited, the Court, observing comity and acceding to the state courts’ jurisdiction, usually invoked the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantees of due process and a fair trial for defendants without legal representation.

The Court did what it could to provide the state courts with the latitude they needed to operate effectively. In so doing, it articulated precepts of fundamental fairness and due process that were vague and subjective at best. Many state court judges made strenuous efforts to base their proceedings and decisions on legal precedents. Some judges, however, used the absence of definitive guidelines to promote their own social agendas.

Earl Warren and State Courts

Earl Warren served as chief justice of the United States from 1954 until 1969. The social upheaval that followed the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and grew out of widespread discontent over the Vietnam War raged during the later years of Warren’s tenure.

Firmly committed to protecting Americans’ civil rights, Warren insisted that the Bill of Rights apply to the nation’s state courts, many of which were dealing with the thorny issues of racial segregation, draft evasion, and civil disobedience. Warren’s resolve resulted in the Court’s overturning many decisions rendered by state appellate and supreme courts regarding criminal defendants, especially those arrested for participating in public demonstrations related to race relations and the Vietnam War.

The Warren Court aroused the animus of nearly every state court justice in the United States. Warren’s violations of comity resulted in widespread calls for his impeachment, although what he was doing was protected by the provisions of Article III of the Constitution and provided no substantial grounds to warrant impeachment.

The Burger and Rehnquist Courts

After Warren’s retirement, Warren E. Burger was appointed chief justice, serving from 1969 until 1986. Under his leadership, the Court became less activist. It substantially abridged the impact of many of the Warren Court’s civil liberties decisions. Some state supreme courts, stung badly by the limitations the Warren Court had imposed on them, now sought to alter their state constitutions to provide broader protections from federal interference than had been available to them during Warren’s term of office.

The Burger court encouraged the new judicial federalism that such initiatives suggested. In time, however, the Court reversed many more state court decisions in cases involving civil liberties or, if not overturning these decisions, returned them to the state courts for further consideration, clearly indicating their unacceptability.

In the Burger Court and that of William H. Rehnquist, the next chief justice, there was a curtailment of lower federal court grants or habeas corpus petitions in matters relating to search and seizure and the death penalty. Because federal courts now hear so few appeals from state prisoners, whose access to federal courts is denied much more often than is permitted, the authority of state courts has been increased substantially.

State Court Defiance

Generally, Court decisions are honored by the state courts, and compliance is required under the law. Although compliance is the rule, exceptions occur. Often, when state courts openly defy federal mandates, their defiance is overlooked. The Court sometimes makes efforts to placate state courts or accommodate them. On rare occasions, the Court capitulates to a defiant state court. In deciding how to address defiance, the Court must consider how much judicial energy it will expend on the matter.

As early as 1821, in Cohens v. Virginia, the state court of Virginia challenged the appellate authority of the Supreme Court, citing Section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, under which the Court was granted the right to review federal questions decided on by state courts. In the Court’s decision, Marshall upheld the concept of federal supremacy.

In the late twentieth century, the Court granted state courts considerable time to implement mandates regarding race relations and to clarify ambiguous rulings. It permitted state courts, after hearings at the highest state and federal judicial levels, to prevail in capital cases that involve complicated legal procedures. The Court, at times, was influenced substantially by state court decisions. It was particularly receptive to the guidance of state supreme courts in matters such as reapportionment, freedom of religion, defendants’ rights, and obscenity, where local considerations are of paramount importance. At times, state supreme court rulings directly affected decisions of the Supreme Court. The California high court’s decision in Purdy and Fitzpatrick v. State (1969) ruled that special treatment to noncitizens was a form of discrimination not permitted under the Fourteenth Amendment. Two years later in Graham v. Richardson (1971), the Supreme Court reached an identical conclusion.

Although the relationship between state courts and the Supreme Court has frequently varied, the general preference of the Court is to grant as much leeway to the state courts as it reasonably can within the boundaries set by the US Constitution. By shifting authority from federal to state courts as much as legally possible, the Court makes its workload manageable and reduces the number of appeals it sees.

Bibliography

Brennan, Jr., Justice William J. “Some Aspects of Federalism.” New York University Law Review, vol. 39, no. 6, 1964, pp. 945-61.

"Comparing Federal & State Courts." United States Courts, www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure/comparing-federal-state-courts. Accessed 15 Apr. 2025.

Cox, Archibald. The Warren Court: Constitutional Decision as an Instrument of Reform. Reprint 2013 ed. Harvard UP, 2014.

Fallon, Richard H., et al. Hart and Wechsler’s the Federal Courts and the Federal System. 7th ed., Foundation Press, 2015.

Friedelbaum, Stanley H. Human Rights in the States: New Directions in Constitutional Policymaking. Greenwood Press, 1988.

Tarr, G. Alan, and Mary C. Porter. State Supreme Courts in State and Nation. Yale UP, 1990.