Federal Laws In State Courts: Who Rules?

The United States judicial system is a complex network of federal and state courts, each with its own jurisdiction and authority. While the federal court system is structured into district, circuit, and Supreme Courts, state courts have their own hierarchies. This raises the question: can federal laws be used in state courts? The answer is generally yes, as state courts have the power and duty to enforce federal laws unless a federal court has exclusive jurisdiction. However, there are nuances and exceptions to this, such as the anti-commandeering doctrine, which distinguishes between federal control over state courts and the political branches of state governments.

State court enforcement of federal law

The United States judicial system is a complex network of federal and state courts, each with its own jurisdiction and authority. While the federal court system comprises district courts, circuit courts, and the Supreme Court, state courts are established by individual states and have their own structures. Despite these differences, state courts play a crucial role in enforcing federal law, as outlined in the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The Supremacy Clause establishes the priority of federal law over state law, stating that the laws of the United States are "the supreme law of the land." This clause applies to state courts, requiring them to give effect to federal law when it is applicable and to disregard conflicting state laws. State courts are generally authorized to hear cases arising under federal law, and they have a duty to enforce obligations arising from federal law unless federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction.

In certain instances, state courts are mandated to hear federal law claims. The Supreme Court has ruled that state courts must entertain federal claims unless a neutral rule of judicial administration bars them from doing so without improperly burdening federal claims. This principle was affirmed in the 2009 case Haywood v. Drown, where the Supreme Court held that a New York state law divesting state courts of jurisdiction over specific federal claims violated the Supremacy Clause.

However, there are situations where state courts may decline jurisdiction over federal claims. The Supreme Court has upheld state courts' refusal to hear federal claims when state law provides a valid excuse, such as in the case of penal statutes of other sovereigns. Nevertheless, the interpretation of federal law by the Supreme Court is considered authoritative, and state courts are expected to follow these interpretations when reviewing cases controlled by federal law.

It is worth noting that the federal court system has exclusive jurisdiction over specific matters, such as bankruptcy cases and criminal prosecutions involving federal laws. Additionally, the Supreme Court of the United States, as the highest court in the land, can decide appeals on cases brought in federal court or state court dealing with federal law. This hierarchical structure ensures that federal law is consistently interpreted and applied across the nation, maintaining uniformity in the application of justice.

Federal control over 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 and state governments have their own court systems.

The US Supreme Court has ruled that state courts must generally hear federal law claims unless a "neutral rule of judicial administration" bars a state court from hearing a federal claim. This means that state courts have the power and duty to enforce federal law unless federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction. State courts are bound to give effect to federal law and to disregard state law when there is a conflict.

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 just as binding on the citizens and courts of the states as state laws are. However, it is important to note that state courts are not required to hear federal claims, even if they are authorized to do so.

In some cases, state courts have declined to enforce federal statutes, citing state policies that conflict with the federal law in question. For example, in Testa v. Katt, the Rhode Island Supreme Court initially declined to enforce a federal statute containing a punitive damages provision, but the US Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that the Rhode Island court must enforce the federal statute.

State court's duty to enforce federal law

State courts have a duty to enforce federal law, as dictated by the Supremacy Clause. In the case of Martin v. Hunter's Lessee in 1816, the Supreme Court ruled that state courts have the power and the duty to enforce federal law unless federal courts have been given exclusive jurisdiction by Congress.

The Supreme Court has also ruled that state courts must hear federal law claims unless state law bars a state court from doing so through a "neutral rule of judicial administration" that does not improperly burden claims arising under federal law. This was demonstrated in the 1990 case of Howlett v. Rose, where the Court summarised cases in which states had validly declined to hear federal claims. In Mondou v. New York, a Connecticut court declined to hear a case arising under federal law, holding that it was "at liberty to decline cognizance of actions to enforce rights arising under [the federal] act".

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. The Court reasoned that the laws of the United States are just as binding on the citizens and courts of the states as state laws. The Court held that "the State courts have concurrent jurisdiction whenever, by their own constitution, they are competent to take it".

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 which is 'foreign in the international sense'". The U.S. Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that the Rhode Island court must enforce the federal statute, and that a state policy of not enforcing penal statutes of other sovereigns was not a "valid excuse".

State courts are bound to give effect to federal law when it is applicable and to disregard state law when there is a conflict. Federal law includes not only the Constitution, laws, and treaties but also the interpretations of their meanings by the United States Supreme Court.

Federal court exclusivity

However, this exclusivity is not absolute, and state courts can still play a role in enforcing federal law. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution establishes that federal law is the "supreme law of the land," and state courts have a duty to enforce federal law unless doing so conflicts with state law. In such cases, state courts must give precedence to federal law and may even be required to hear cases involving federal law claims. The Supreme Court has ruled that state courts "are bound by [the Supreme Court's] interpretation of federal law" and must follow its rulings.

The Supreme Court has also clarified that state courts generally must hear federal law claims unless a "neutral rule of judicial administration" bars them from doing so. This means that a state cannot simply refuse to hear a federal claim because it disagrees with the law or considers it contrary to local policy. However, if a state law provides a valid excuse for declining jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has upheld state courts' refusal to hear federal claims in some instances.

Additionally, there are specific requirements for bringing a state law claim in federal court. All plaintiffs must be located in different states from the defendants, and the "amount in controversy" must exceed $75,000. Criminal cases, for example, cannot be brought under diversity jurisdiction, and double jeopardy does not apply between federal and state governments.

State court jurisdiction

In the United States, both the federal government and each of the state governments have their own court systems. The question of state court jurisdiction, or the power of state courts to hear and decide cases, is therefore a complex one.

State courts have general jurisdiction, meaning they can hear any controversy except those prohibited by state law or those that fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of federal courts. For example, federal law currently grants exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts over bankruptcy cases. State courts also cannot hear cases that do not involve state citizens and did not take place in the state.

The US Constitution's Supremacy Clause requires that state courts give effect to federal law when it is applicable and disregard state law when there is a conflict. State courts are bound not only by the US Constitution and federal laws and treaties but also by interpretations of their meanings by the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has ruled that state courts must hear federal law claims unless state law bars a state court from doing so through a "neutral rule of judicial administration" that does not improperly burden claims arising under federal law.

State court territorial jurisdiction, or the power of state courts to bind the parties to an action, is determined by the Due Process Clause of the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment. This means that state courts can generally hear cases over which federal courts would have jurisdiction unless federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over the matter.

Frequently asked questions