Federal Laws: State Courts' Jurisdiction Explored

The United States Constitution establishes a federal system of government, with power shared between the federal government and state governments. Both federal and state governments have their own court systems, which raises the question of whether federal laws can be litigated in state courts. State courts are generally considered to have the power and duty to enforce federal laws unless a case falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of federal courts. This is based on the principle that federal law is the supreme law of the land and is effective in every state.

State courts must hear federal law claims

In the United States, both the federal government and each of the state governments have their own court systems. The question of whether federal laws can be litigated in state courts is related to the anti-commandeering doctrine, which distinguishes between federal control over state courts and commandeering of the political branches of state government.

State courts are bound by the Supremacy Clause, which requires them to apply federal law. This means that state courts have the power and duty to enforce federal law unless Congress gives federal courts exclusive jurisdiction. State courts are required to give effect to federal law when it is applicable and to disregard state law when there is a conflict. This includes interpreting the meanings of the Constitution, laws, and treaties by the United States Supreme Court. In the case of Claflin v. Houseman, the Supreme Court held that state courts could hear cases arising under federal bankruptcy law, even though federal law now grants exclusive jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases to federal courts.

The Supreme Court has 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" that does not improperly burden claims arising under federal law. This was emphasised by Justice John Paul Stevens, who stated that only a neutral jurisdictional rule would be deemed a 'valid excuse' for departing from the default assumption that state courts will hear federal claims. In the case of Howlett v. Rose, the Supreme Court ruled that state courts must hear federal law claims unless state law provides a valid excuse for declining jurisdiction.

State courts are considered courts of general jurisdiction, meaning they can try all cases except those that Congress has specified should be litigated only in federal courts. Federal courts, on the other hand, are courts of limited jurisdiction and can only try certain kinds of cases, such as those presenting a federal question or involving diversity of citizenship.

Federal control over state courts

The US Constitution establishes a federal system of government, with power shared between the federal government and state governments. Both the federal and state governments have their own court systems.

The question of state court enforcement of federal law is related to, but distinct from, the anti-commandeering doctrine. In the case of Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court distinguished between federal control over state courts and commandeering of the political branches of state government. Justice Scalia's majority opinion surveyed federal legislation that required state courts to take certain actions, such as recording applications for citizenship. However, the Court also noted that state courts are bound by the Supremacy Clause, which expressly requires them to apply federal law.

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. This was demonstrated in the 1876 case of Claflin v. Houseman, where the Supreme Court held that state courts could hear cases arising under federal bankruptcy law.

In some cases, state courts have declined to hear federal claims, citing state law or policy as a valid excuse. For example, in Mondou v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., a Connecticut court declined to hear a case arising under federal law, as it felt it was "at liberty to decline cognizance of actions to enforce rights" under the federal act due to a mismatch in state and federal policy. The Supreme Court rejected this proposition, emphasizing that Congress was not attempting to regulate the jurisdiction of state courts or control their procedures. Similarly, in Testa v. Katt, the Rhode Island Supreme Court declined to enforce a federal statute with a punitive damages provision, deeming it penal in nature and not something a state needed to enforce. The US Supreme Court reversed this decision, stating that a state policy of not enforcing penal statutes of other sovereigns was not a "valid excuse".

State court enforcement of federal law

The question of state court enforcement of federal law is related to, but distinct from, the anti-commandeering doctrine. In the US, both the federal government and each of the state governments have their own court systems.

In the case of Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court distinguished between federal control over state courts and commandeering of the political branches of state government. Justice Scalia's majority opinion surveyed federal legislation from early Congresses that required state courts to take certain actions, such as recording applications for citizenship. However, state courts are bound by the Supremacy Clause, which expressly requires them to apply federal law.

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 1876 case of Claflin v. Houseman, the Supreme Court held that state courts could hear cases arising under federal bankruptcy law. Currently, federal law grants exclusive jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases to federal courts, but that was not the case at the time of the events in question in Claflin.

In Testa v. Katt, the Rhode Island Supreme Court declined to enforce a federal statute containing a punitive damages provision, finding that the law was penal in nature and that the "state need not enforce the penal laws of a government that is 'foreign in the international sense'". However, in the same case, the Court unanimously held that state courts are required to enforce "penal" laws of the United States, at least with regard to claims and cases analogous to those enforceable under state law.

In New York, a statute removed jurisdiction over both state and federal claims, but the Court held that "equality of treatment" between state and federal claims did not ensure that a state law would be deemed a "valid excuse" for refusing to entertain a federal cause of action. By distinguishing between Section 1983 claims against corrections officers and all other Section 1983 suits, New York undermined the federal policy of making relief under Section 1983 broadly available.

In summary, while state courts generally must hear federal law claims, there are exceptions. State courts are not required to hear federal claims that fall outside their "ordinary jurisdiction" as prescribed by local laws. Additionally, state law can provide a valid excuse for a state court to decline jurisdiction over a federal claim if it does so in a neutral and non-burdensome way.

Federal court interference with state courts

The US Constitution establishes a federal system of government, with power shared between the federal government and the state governments. Both the federal government and each of the state governments have their own court systems.

Conflict between federal and state courts is inevitable when federal courts are open to persons complaining about unconstitutional or unlawful state action, which could also be brought in state courts. However, rules of restraint flowing from the concept of comity reduce federal interference to some degree.

The Supreme Court has 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" that does not improperly burden claims arising under federal law. In the 1876 case of Claflin v. Houseman, the Supreme Court held that state courts could hear cases arising under federal bankruptcy law.

In Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court distinguished between federal control over state courts and commandeering of the political branches of state government. Justice Scalia's majority opinion noted that state courts are bound by the Supremacy Clause, which expressly requires them to apply federal law.

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 Testa v. Katt, the Rhode Island Supreme Court declined to enforce a federal statute with a punitive damages provision, deeming the law to be penal in nature.

State court jurisdiction to enforce federal law

The US Constitution establishes a federal system of government, where power is shared between the federal government and the state governments. Both federal and state governments have their own court systems. The question of state court enforcement of federal law is related to, but distinct from, the anti-commandeering doctrine.

In the case of Mondou v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., a Connecticut court declined to hear a case arising under federal law, stating that it was "at liberty to decline cognizance of actions to enforce rights arising under [the federal] act, because... the policy manifested by it is not in accord with the policy of the state." The Supreme Court rejected this proposition and held that the state court must hear the case. The Court emphasised that the case did not involve any attempt by Congress to regulate the jurisdiction of state courts, but rather a question of when state courts must hear federal claims that fall within their ordinary jurisdiction, as prescribed by local laws.

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 1876 case of Claflin v. Houseman, the Supreme Court held that state courts could hear cases arising under federal bankruptcy law. However, federal law now grants exclusive jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases to federal courts.

In the case of Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court distinguished between federal control over state courts and commandeering of the political branches of state government. Justice Scalia's majority opinion noted that state courts are bound by the Supremacy Clause, which expressly requires them to apply federal law. The Court concluded that early statutes imposing obligations on state courts do not imply a power of Congress to impress the state executive into its service.

In summary, while state and federal court systems exist separately, state courts generally must hear federal law claims unless a valid excuse is provided. The Supreme Court has emphasised that only a neutral jurisdictional rule will be deemed a valid excuse for departing from the assumption that state courts will hear federal claims.

Frequently asked questions