The nature of judicial review - The “adequate and independent state ground”

Learning Outcomes

This article examines the "adequate and independent state ground" doctrine as a limitation on the U.S. Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. After reviewing this material, you will be able to identify when this doctrine applies, distinguish between adequate and independent state law grounds, and analyze how these concepts affect the reviewability of state court judgments in federal court, preparing you for related MBE questions.

MBE Syllabus

For the MBE, you are required to understand the limits on federal judicial review, particularly concerning decisions from state courts. This includes the doctrine of adequate and independent state grounds. You should be prepared to:

  • Recognize the U.S. Supreme Court's authority to review state court judgments.
  • Identify the limitation imposed when a state court judgment rests on an adequate and independent state law basis.
  • Determine whether a state law ground is "adequate" to support the judgment regardless of the federal issue outcome.
  • Determine whether a state law ground is "independent" of federal law.
  • Analyze the consequences when the basis for the state court decision (state or federal law) is ambiguous.

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

  1. The U.S. Supreme Court generally lacks jurisdiction to review a state court judgment if that judgment:
    1. Involves a question of federal law.
    2. Rests solely on an interpretation of the state's own constitution.
    3. Is supported by an adequate and independent state ground.
    4. Conflicts with a decision from another state's highest court.
  2. For a state law ground to be "adequate" to preclude U.S. Supreme Court review, it must:
    1. Be based on a recently enacted state statute.
    2. Fully resolve the case, making the federal issue irrelevant to the final outcome.
    3. Have been previously reviewed and approved by a federal court.
    4. Address a matter of purely local concern.
  3. A state law ground is "independent" if:
    1. It involves a state statute that mirrors a federal statute.
    2. Its interpretation does not rely on federal law or the U.S. Constitution.
    3. It was decided by the state's highest court unanimously.
    4. It addresses a procedural rather than a substantive issue.
  4. If a state court decision rests on both federal and state grounds, and the state ground is adequate and independent, the U.S. Supreme Court will:
    1. Review both the federal and state law issues.
    2. Review only the federal law issue.
    3. Review only the state law issue.
    4. Refuse jurisdiction over the case.

Introduction

The power of the U.S. Supreme Court to review decisions from state courts is a critical aspect of federal judicial review. However, this power is not unlimited. A significant constraint arises from the adequate and independent state ground (AISG) doctrine. This doctrine holds that the Supreme Court will not exercise its appellate jurisdiction over a state court judgment if that judgment is supported by a state law basis that is adequate to resolve the case and independent of federal law. Understanding this doctrine is essential for analyzing jurisdictional issues in Constitutional Law questions on the MBE.

The Adequate and Independent State Ground Doctrine

The Supreme Court's authority to review state court decisions stems from its role in ensuring the supremacy and uniformity of federal law. However, principles of federalism and judicial efficiency limit this review. The Court will only review the federal law aspects of a state court decision. If the state court's judgment can be fully supported by a state law basis, reviewing the federal issue would essentially amount to an advisory opinion, as the outcome of the case would remain unchanged regardless of the Supreme Court's decision on the federal question.

Key Term: Adequate and Independent State Ground (AISG) A principle limiting U.S. Supreme Court review of a state court judgment. If the state court's decision rests on a state law basis that is adequate to support the final judgment and independent of federal law, the Supreme Court will not review the federal law issues in the case.

Adequacy

For a state ground to be adequate, it must fully support the outcome of the case. In other words, even if the state court decided the federal issue differently, the result under state law would be the same.

Key Term: Adequate State Ground A basis in state law that is sufficient, by itself, to support the state court's judgment, regardless of how any federal law issues are resolved.

  • Substantive Adequacy: The state law ground must dictate the result. If the party claiming a federal right wins anyway under state law, the state ground is adequate, and SCOTUS review is barred.
  • Procedural Adequacy: State procedural rules can form an adequate ground barring federal review if the rule is consistently applied and does not unduly burden the assertion of federal rights. A state cannot manipulate its procedures simply to block federal review of a federal claim.

Worked Example 1.1

Defendant was convicted under a state statute. She appealed to the state supreme court, arguing the statute violated both the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause and an equivalent provision in the state constitution. The state supreme court agreed the statute violated the state constitution's equal protection provision and reversed the conviction on that basis alone, without deciding the federal constitutional issue. Can the state seek review in the U.S. Supreme Court?

Answer: No. The state supreme court's judgment rests on an adequate and independent state ground. The state constitutional ground is "adequate" because it fully supports the reversal of the conviction, regardless of the federal issue. It is "independent" because the court based its decision solely on its interpretation of the state constitution, not federal law. Therefore, the U.S. Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction.

Independence

For a state ground to be independent, the state court's decision must not be based on its interpretation of federal law or the U.S. Constitution. If the state court decision relies on federal law—for instance, if a state constitutional provision is interpreted to provide the same protection as a parallel federal provision and the court relies on federal cases—the state ground is not independent.

Key Term: Independent State Ground A basis in state law whose interpretation and application by the state court does not rely on or incorporate federal law or constitutional principles.

  • Reliance on Federal Law: If the state court explicitly bases its decision on federal law, or intertwines state and federal law analysis such that the state ground is not clearly separate, it is not independent.
  • Parallel Provisions: If a state constitution has a provision parallel to one in the U.S. Constitution (e.g., free speech), the state court's interpretation is independent only if it explicitly states it is relying solely on state law and that federal cases are used only for guidance.

Ambiguity

If it is unclear whether the state court decision rests on state or federal grounds, the Supreme Court generally has jurisdiction to review the federal issue. The Court may:

  1. Assume federal grounds: Review the federal issue if the state court's reasoning appears to rely primarily on federal law.
  2. Remand: Send the case back to the state court for clarification on the basis of its decision.
  3. Dismiss: Dismiss the case if it believes the state court decision likely rested on state law, even if ambiguous. Michigan v. Long established a presumption that SCOTUS has jurisdiction when ambiguity exists unless the state court decision clearly and expressly states that it rests on adequate and independent state grounds.

Exam Warning

Be careful not to confuse substantive state law grounds with state procedural grounds. A state procedural ruling (e.g., failure to raise an issue timely) can be an adequate state ground barring federal review, but only if the procedural rule is consistently applied by the state courts and does not place an unreasonable burden on the assertion of federal rights. Novel or inconsistently applied state procedures are generally not deemed "adequate."

Summary

The U.S. Supreme Court will not review a state court judgment if that judgment rests upon an adequate and independent state law ground. A state ground is "adequate" if it fully supports the judgment, making the federal issue outcome-determinative. A state ground is "independent" if the state court's interpretation does not rely on federal law. If the basis of the state court's decision is ambiguous, the Supreme Court may review the federal issue, remand for clarification, or dismiss. State procedural rules can serve as adequate grounds if consistently applied and not unduly burdensome to federal rights.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

  • The U.S. Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction over state court judgments is limited.
  • The Adequate and Independent State Ground (AISG) doctrine prevents review if the state judgment rests on state law that is adequate and independent.
  • "Adequate" means the state ground fully supports the outcome regardless of the federal issue.
  • "Independent" means the state decision does not rely on interpretation of federal law.
  • State procedural grounds can be adequate if consistently applied and not unduly burdensome.
  • Ambiguity in the state court's basis may allow Supreme Court review, often under the Michigan v. Long presumption.

Key Terms and Concepts

  • Adequate and Independent State Ground (AISG)
  • Adequate State Ground
  • Independent State Ground
The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
AdaptiBar
One-time Fee
$395
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
BarPrepHero
One-time Fee
$299
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350
Quimbee
One-time Fee
$1,199

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal