State Courts And Federal Law: Who Rules?

The ability of state courts to rule on federal law is a complex issue. While state courts have the power and duty to enforce federal law, they are not obligated to hear every federal claim. State courts may hear cases over which federal courts have jurisdiction unless federal law grants exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts. State courts can decline jurisdiction over federal claims if state law provides a valid excuse, such as jurisdictional or procedural reasons, without improperly burdening federal claims. The Supreme Court has ruled that state courts must generally hear federal law claims, upholding the principle that federal law is the supreme law of the land.

State court enforcement of federal law

State courts have the power and the duty to enforce federal law unless federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction. In the 1876 case of Claflin v. Houseman, the Supreme Court ruled that state courts could hear cases arising under federal bankruptcy law. The Court reasoned that the laws of the United States are binding on the citizens and courts of the states, and that the United States is a paramount sovereignty within its jurisdiction. The Court thus held that "the State courts have concurrent jurisdiction whenever, by their own constitution, they are competent to take it."

While the Claflin case concerned when state courts may exercise jurisdiction over federal claims, subsequent cases have cited it when considering when state courts may validly decline jurisdiction over federal claims. In several cases, the Supreme Court has upheld state courts' refusal to hear federal claims, finding that state law provided a valid excuse to decline jurisdiction. For example, in Douglas v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., the Court upheld a state law that allowed state courts to decline jurisdiction over both state and federal law claims when neither party was a resident of the state.

However, it is important to note that state courts are not required to hear all federal claims. In deciding multiple cases on this issue, the Supreme Court has ruled that state courts generally must hear federal law claims unless state law bars a state court from hearing a federal claim through a "neutral rule of judicial administration" that does not improperly burden claims arising under federal law. In the 2009 case of Haywood v. Drown, the Supreme Court considered a New York state statute that divested state courts of jurisdiction over suits seeking money damages from corrections officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court held that the New York law violated the Supremacy Clause, as it undermined the federal policy of making relief under Section 1983 broadly available.

State courts are bound to give effect to federal law when it is applicable and to disregard state law when there is a conflict. This includes not only the Constitution, laws, and treaties but also the interpretations of their meanings by the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's interpretation of a federal law is considered an "authoritative interpretation" that state judges must follow.

State court's power and duty to enforce federal law

The power of state courts to enforce federal law is a complex issue that has been addressed by the Supreme Court on multiple occasions. While state courts have concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts, they are not obligated to hear every federal law claim. The Supreme Court has ruled that state courts must generally hear federal law claims unless a "neutral rule of judicial administration" set by state law bars them from doing so. This rule must not improperly burden claims arising under federal law.

The Supreme Court has upheld state courts' refusal to hear federal claims in several cases, finding that state law provided a valid excuse to decline jurisdiction. For example, in Douglas v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., the Court upheld a state law that allowed state courts to decline jurisdiction over both state and federal law claims when neither party was a resident of the state. Similarly, in Herb v. Pitcairn, the Supreme Court upheld a state court's application of state venue laws to dismiss a case brought under federal law because the cause of action arose outside the court's territorial jurisdiction.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court has also ruled against state courts' refusal to hear federal claims in certain instances. In the 2009 case of Haywood v. Drown, the Court considered a New York state statute that divested state courts of jurisdiction over suits seeking money damages from corrections officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court held that the New York law violated the Supremacy Clause, emphasizing that only a neutral jurisdictional rule would be deemed a "valid excuse" for departing from the assumption that state courts will hear federal claims.

The question of state court enforcement of federal law is related to, but distinct from, the anti-commandeering doctrine. In Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court distinguished between federal control over state courts and commandeering of the political branches of state governments. The Court noted that state courts are bound by the Supremacy Clause, which expressly requires them to apply federal law.

In summary, while state courts have the power to enforce federal law, they are not always obligated to do so. State courts may decline jurisdiction over federal claims if allowed by state law and as long as it does not improperly burden federal claims. However, state courts must be cautious not to violate the Supremacy Clause or other federal policies when declining to hear federal law cases.

State court's refusal to hear federal claims

In the United States, state courts are generally permitted to rule on federal law. However, there have been instances where state courts have refused to hear federal claims. This refusal is based on the principle of "neutral rules of judicial administration" and specific circumstances that allow them to decline jurisdiction.

One notable case is Douglas v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., where the Supreme Court upheld a state law that allowed state courts to decline jurisdiction over both state and federal law claims when neither party was a resident of the state. Similarly, in Herb v. Pitcairn, the Supreme Court upheld a state court's application of state venue laws to dismiss a case brought under federal law as it fell outside the city court's territorial jurisdiction. These cases demonstrate that state courts can refuse to hear federal claims under certain conditions.

In another case, Haywood v. Drown (2009), the Supreme Court considered a New York state statute that sought to divest state courts of jurisdiction over suits seeking monetary damages from corrections officers. The Court held that the New York law violated the Supremacy Clause, emphasizing that only a ""neutral jurisdictional rule" could be a "valid excuse" for departing from the assumption that state courts will hear federal claims. This case highlights the importance of ensuring equal treatment between state and federal claims.

While state courts have concurrent jurisdiction and can rule on federal laws, they must follow "neutral rules of judicial administration" when refusing to hear federal claims. State courts must also be mindful of not improperly burdening federal claims and ensuring equal treatment between state and federal laws. The Supreme Court has played a crucial role in upholding these principles and providing clarity on when state courts can validly decline jurisdiction over federal claims.

Federal court's exclusive jurisdiction

In the United States, the judicial branch of government has the authority to decide the constitutionality of federal laws and resolve other cases involving federal laws. The federal court system is structured to maintain a balance of power between the different branches of government.

Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over certain subject matters of national significance, such as patent and admiralty law. This exclusive jurisdiction is based on the substantial federal interest in these issues and facilitates the development of a uniform body of federal law to govern complex matters with interstate implications. Federal courts also have exclusive jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases, as per 28 U.S.C. § 1334.

However, in the 1876 case of Claflin v. Houseman, the Supreme Court held that state courts could hear cases arising under federal bankruptcy law. The Court reasoned that the laws of the United States are binding on the citizens and courts of the individual states. While the case of Claflin v. Houseman concerned when state courts may exercise jurisdiction over federal claims, subsequent cases have cited it when considering when state courts may decline jurisdiction over such claims.

In summary, unless federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over a matter, state courts may hear cases over which federal courts would also have jurisdiction. State courts have concurrent jurisdiction when they are competent to take it by their own constitution. However, state courts are not required to hear federal claims, and they may decline jurisdiction under specific circumstances, such as through a neutral rule of judicial administration that does not improperly burden claims arising under federal law.

State court's obligation under the Supremacy Clause

State courts are bound to give effect to federal law and to disregard state law when there is a conflict. This is derived from the Supremacy Clause, which establishes that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties made under its authority, are the "supreme Law of the Land".

The Supremacy Clause is a conflict-of-laws rule, specifying that federal acts take priority over state acts that conflict with federal law. The Supremacy Clause assumes the underlying priority of federal authority, and state courts are bound by this. Federal preemption applies regardless of whether the conflicting laws come from legislatures, courts, or other entities.

In the 1876 case of Claflin v. Houseman, the Supreme Court held that state courts could hear cases arising under federal bankruptcy law. The Court reasoned that the laws of the United States are binding on the citizens and courts of the several States, and that the United States is a paramount sovereignty. The Court thus held that "the State courts have concurrent jurisdiction whenever, by their own constitution, they are competent to take it".

In several cases, the Supreme Court has upheld state courts' refusal to hear federal claims, finding that state law provided a valid excuse to decline jurisdiction. For example, in Douglas v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., the Court upheld a state law that allowed state courts to decline jurisdiction over both state and federal law claims when neither party was a resident of the State. However, the Supreme Court has also ruled that state courts must generally hear federal law claims unless state law bars a state court from hearing a federal claim through a "neutral rule of judicial administration".

In Haywood v. Drown, the Supreme Court considered a state statute that divested New York state courts of jurisdiction over suits seeking money damages from corrections officers. The Court held that the New York law violated the Supremacy Clause, as only a neutral jurisdictional rule will be deemed a 'valid excuse' for departing from the default assumption that state courts will hear federal claims.

Frequently asked questions