The federal statute admitting the state of Blue to the Union granted Blue certain public lands, and established some very ambiguous conditions on the subsequent disposition of these lands by Blue. This federal statute also required the new state to write those exact same conditions into its state constitution. One hundred years later, a statute of Blue dealing with the sale of these public lands was challenged in a state court lawsuit on the ground that it was inconsistent with the conditions contained in the federal statute, and with the provisions of the Blue Constitution that exactly copy the conditions contained in the federal statute. The trial court decision in this case was appealed to the Blue Supreme Court. In its opinion, the Blue Supreme Court dealt at length with the ambiguous language of the federal statute and with cases interpreting identical language in federal statutes admitting other states to the union. The Blue Supreme Court opinion did not discuss the similar provisions of the Blue Constitution, but it did hold that the challenged Blue statute is invalid because it is “inconsistent with the language of the federal statute and therefore is inconsistent with the identical provisions of our state constitution.”
If the losing party in the Blue Supreme Court seeks review of the decision of that court in the United States Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court should:
A. Accept the case for review and determine the validity and interpretation of the federal statute if it is an important and substantial question.
B. Ask the Blue Supreme Court to indicate more clearly whether it relied on the state constitutional provision in rendering its decision.
C. Decline to review the case on the ground that the decision of the Blue Supreme Court rests on an adequate and independent state ground.
D. Decline to review the case because a decision by a state supreme court concerning the proper disposition of state public lands is not reviewable by the United States Supreme Court.
{ 10 comments }
