Judicial Rulings: Overriding State Law?

The US Constitution establishes the judicial branch as one of three separate branches of the federal government, each with its own areas of authority. The US Supreme Court is the highest court in the country, with the power to decide the constitutionality of federal laws and resolve cases involving them. Below the US Supreme Court are 13 appellate courts, which determine whether the law was correctly applied in the trial court, and 94 district or trial courts, which resolve disputes by applying the law to the facts of the case. The US judicial system is based on a code of conduct that promotes integrity, independence, and impartiality. Judges are expected to act without fear or favour, and any violation of this code can diminish public confidence in the judiciary. While federal courts generally respect state court rulings, they can overrule them in certain situations, such as when a state statute is challenged as unconstitutional.

Federal courts overruling state courts

The US Constitution establishes the judicial branch as one of the three separate and distinct branches of the federal government. These three branches—legislative, executive, and judicial—operate within a constitutional system of "checks and balances". This means that while each branch is formally separate from the other two, they must also cooperate.

The US Constitution gives jurisdiction in certain types of cases only to federal courts. Federal courts can interfere with state courts in three main ways: by enjoining proceedings, by issuing writs of habeas corpus to set aside convictions, and by adjudicating cases removed from state courts.

The abstention doctrine instructs federal courts to abstain from exercising jurisdiction if the applicable state law is unclear and a state court's interpretation of the law might make resolving a federal constitutional issue unnecessary. However, abstention is not proper when the relevant state law is settled, or when it is clear that the state statute or action challenged is unconstitutional. In such cases, federal jurisdiction is not removed, but postponed.

The Supreme Court has sometimes encouraged or required lower federal courts to use certification procedures, which allow federal courts to refer unsettled questions of state law to state courts. This is particularly relevant when there are novel issues of state law that require the exercise of judgment by the state courts, or when a state law is being challenged as unconstitutional.

Comity and abstention doctrine

Comity is a self-imposed rule of judicial restraint that allows independent tribunals of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction to moderate the stresses of coexistence and avoid collisions of authority. It is a rule of practice, convenience, and expediency, which persuades but does not command.

The abstention doctrine is an authority that precludes federal courts from hearing cases within their jurisdiction and instead gives state courts the authority over the case. It is rooted in federalism and the interest of allowing state courts to adjudicate matters of particular significance to the state or its laws. The doctrine holds that:

> The federal courts should not adjudicate the constitutionality of state enactments fairly open to interpretation until the state courts have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to pass on them.

The abstention doctrine instructs federal courts to abstain from exercising jurisdiction if the applicable state law dispositive to the controversy is unclear, and a state court's interpretation of the state law might make resolving a federal constitutional issue unnecessary. In other words, federal courts should not adjudicate the constitutionality of state laws until the state courts have had an opportunity to do so.

Abstention is not proper where the relevant state law is settled, or where it is clear that the state statute or action challenged is unconstitutional, no matter how the state court construes state law. Federal jurisdiction is not ousted by abstention but postponed. The Supreme Court has said that abstention can serve the interests of federal-state comity by avoiding a result in 'needless friction with state policies' and can spare federal courts of unnecessary constitutional adjudication.

There are several sub-doctrines of abstention, including:

• Pullman abstention: Federal courts should not adjudicate the constitutionality of state laws fairly open to interpretation until state courts have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to pass on them.
• Younger abstention: Federal courts are barred from hearing civil rights tort claims brought by a person who is currently being prosecuted for a matter arising from that claim in state court.
• Burford abstention: Federal courts should refuse cases where state agency action is involved and defer to state courts to review the state's agencies.

Judicial independence and integrity

The US Constitution establishes the judicial branch as one of the three separate and distinct branches of the federal government, with each branch having its own roles and areas of authority. The judicial branch has the authority to decide the constitutionality of federal laws and resolve other cases involving federal laws. Federal laws are passed by Congress and signed by the President, but it is the role of the judicial branch to determine whether the law was applied correctly.

The US Supreme Court is the highest court in the country, with the power to overrule state courts. The Supreme Court has sometimes encouraged or required lower federal courts to use certification procedures, allowing federal courts to refer unsettled questions of state law to state courts. This process is not grounded in the federal constitution, but certification may be used to avoid relying on the abstention doctrine, which instructs federal courts to abstain from exercising jurisdiction if applicable state law is unclear.

The integrity and independence of judges are essential to maintaining public confidence in the judiciary. Judges should act without fear or favour and comply with the law and a Code of Conduct. For example, judges should avoid lending the prestige of their office to advance their private interests or those of others. They should also refrain from engaging in or tolerating workplace conduct that could be interpreted as harassment or abusive behaviour.

Citizens must believe their judges are fair and impartial, and judicial misconduct can break down the public's trust and confidence in the judiciary. Judicial misconduct can include jailing people without due process, inventing improper remedies for cases, or a breakdown in the rule of law.

Habeas corpus and federal habeas relief

In the United States, the Constitution establishes the judicial branch as one of the three separate and distinct branches of the federal government. The other two are the legislative and executive branches. While each branch is formally separate, they must also cooperate. The judicial branch has the authority to decide the constitutionality of federal laws and resolve other cases involving federal laws.

Habeas corpus is a legal action taken by a defendant who seeks relief for some perceived error in their criminal trial. It is often used as a post-conviction remedy for state or federal prisoners who challenge the legality of the application of federal laws that were used in the judicial proceedings that resulted in their detention. It is also used in immigration or deportation cases, matters concerning military detentions, and preliminary matters in criminal cases, such as an adequate basis for detention, removal to another federal district court, or the denial of bail or parole.

Federal habeas relief is available when a state court's determination was "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States." The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 narrowed the scope of habeas relief, stating that prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay may not access federal courts through habeas corpus. Instead, they must go through military commissions and then seek appeal in the D.C. Circuit Court.

In 1996, Congress passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), which introduced a one-year statute of limitations on habeas petitions and limited the power of federal judges to grant relief unless the state court's adjudication of the claim resulted in a decision contrary to or involving an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. The AEDPA was intended to deter terrorism, provide justice for victims, and ensure an effective death penalty.

Judicial conduct and misconduct

The US Constitution establishes the judicial branch as one of the three separate and distinct branches of the federal government. These three branches—legislative, executive, and judicial—operate within a constitutional system of "checks and balances". This means that while each branch is formally separate from the other two, the Constitution often requires cooperation among the branches.

The US Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States. Below the US Supreme Court are 13 appellate courts, called US courts of appeals, and 94 district or trial courts, called US district courts. The judicial branch, in turn, has the authority to decide the constitutionality of federal laws and resolve other cases involving federal laws. However, judges depend on the executive branch to enforce court decisions.

The US judiciary is built on a foundation of public faith. Judges do not command armies or police forces, they do not have the power to fund initiatives, and they do not pass legislation. Instead, they make rulings on the law. Rulings that the people must believe came from competent, lawful, and independent judicial officers.

Judicial conduct oversight should not attempt to regulate the purely personal aspects of a judge's life. However, a judge can commit misconduct by engaging in personal behaviour that calls their judicial integrity into question. This is true even if the same behaviour would merely be considered unwise for the average citizen. Obvious examples are violations of criminal law, sexual misconduct with staff/attorneys/parties, joining discriminatory organizations, and using the judicial position to enhance a private interest.

Judicial misconduct occurs when a judge acts in ways that are considered unethical or otherwise violate the judge's obligations of impartial conduct. Actions that can be classified as judicial misconduct include:

• Conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts (e.g. "falsification of facts" at summary judgment)
• Using the judge's office to obtain special treatment for friends or relatives
• Accepting bribes, gifts, or other personal favours related to the judicial office
• Having improper discussions with parties or counsel for one side in a case
• Treating litigants or attorneys in a demonstrably egregious and hostile manner
• Violating other specific, mandatory standards of judicial conduct, such as judicial rules of procedure or evidence, or those pertaining to restrictions on outside income and requirements for financial disclosure
• Acting outside the jurisdiction of the court, or performance of official duties if the conduct might have a prejudicial effect on the administration of the business of the courts among reasonable people
• Failing to disqualify when the judge has a conflict of interest
• Engaging in ex parte communication
• Failing to execute their judicial duties in a timely fashion

In the US, a Code of Conduct for United States Judges exists to prevent judicial misconduct. This includes rules such as:

• Judges should diligently discharge administrative responsibilities, maintain professional competence in judicial administration, and facilitate the performance of the administrative responsibilities of other judges and court personnel
• Judges should not direct court personnel to engage in conduct on the judge’s behalf or as the judge’s representative when that conduct would contravene the Code if undertaken by the judge
• Judges should exercise the power of appointment fairly and only on the basis of merit, avoiding unnecessary appointments, nepotism, and favouritism
• Judges should practice civility, by being patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous, in dealings with court personnel, including chambers staff
• Judges should not engage in any form of harassment of court personnel
• Judges should not retaliate against those who report misconduct
• Judges should discourage a party from requiring the judge to testify as a character witness except in unusual circumstances when the demands of justice require
• Judges should avoid lending the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others

In the UK, judicial misconduct is investigated by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office. A judicial investigative committee is a panel of judges selected to investigate a judicial misconduct complaint against a judge accused of judicial misconduct.

Frequently asked questions