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… read them below or add one }
Answer A is correct. The decision of the Blue Supreme Court, which invalidated the statute under the federal statute and the Blue Constitution, was not made on an independent state ground because the Blue Supreme Court held that the Blue Constitution must be interpreted in a way consistent with the federal statute. Therefore the decision can be reviewed by the United States Supreme Court.
Answer B is incorrect. The opinion of the Blue Supreme Court interpreted the statute under both the Blue Constitution and under the federal statute. Further clarification is not necessary for the court to conclude that there is no adequate and independent state ground.
Answer C is incorrect. The decision of the Blue Supreme Court, which invalidated the statute under the federal statute and the Blue Constitution, was not made on an independent state ground because the Blue Supreme Court held that the Blue Constitution must be interpreted in a way consistent with the federal statute.
Answer D is incorrect. The decision of the state supreme court is reviewable by the United States Supreme Court as long as it was not made on adequate and independent state grounds. In this case it was not.
A. the US Supreme Court is concerned with Constitutional matters first and second with statutes that express an important and substantial question which may affect other states.
A
Federal law at trial level; and federal law basis at supreme level —
Im with A.
A because when a state court deos not clearly state that it has declined the case on the basis of state ground, the Supreme court may hear the case.
Answer B. The Supreme Court is authorized to review whether
state court decisions offend federal law under Article III of the
Constitution. Here, a state court has declared that its standard is the same
as a federal standard. Based on the given facts, the state court may have an
inaccurate interpretation of the federal standard. Therefore, the Supreme
Court may reverse the incorrect statement by the state court by remanding
the case to the state court from which it was removed for further
determination.
Answer A
I think B is the best choice here. It is unclear whether the Blue Supreme Court decision turned on federal or state law. Blue S.C. dealt with federal case law in interpreting the identical federal provision. However, Blue S.C. also rendered its decision because Blue statute was inconsistent with the identical provisions of Blue State Constitution. Thus, the Supreme Court may dismiss the case or remand it to the state court for clarification. I believe, since the basis is unclear, the Supreme Court should remand for clarification. If the decision turned on state law, then the court would refuse jurisdiction because there would be adequate and independent nonfederal grounds to support the state decision. However, if the decision turned on federal law, the Supreme Court could determine the validity and interpretation of the federal statute.
The best answer is A. I chose this answer because the blue statute is at odds with the federal statute, and the state constitution has the same provisions as the federal constitution.
I believe the best answer is A because the decision of the Blue Supreme Court was based primarily on interpretation of the federal statute which the State Constitution was based on.