Comments on: MBE Question of the Day #35

By: Maryann Herman

Maryann Herman — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:08:21 +0000

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.

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:04:03 +0000

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.

By: Ken

Ken — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 06:19:18 +0000

Federal law at trial level; and federal law basis at supreme level —

By: Cheese

Cheese — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 05:34:34 +0000

Im with A.

By: Mona

Mona — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 04:02:44 +0000

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.

By: mimi

mimi — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:10:43 +0000

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.

By: shahin

shahin — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 17:33:17 +0000

Answer A

By: BV

BV — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:55:11 +0000

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.

By: RK

RK — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:13:09 +0000

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.

By: gmevans

gmevans — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:01:13 +0000

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.