[EL] V.I. Courts vs. Fed'l Courts

[BZall at aol.com]

Without getting into the Purcell or other issues in this recent  Virgin 
Islands opinion, a comment on the "state vs. federal courts" issue that  seems 
to have annoyed Prof. Muller: this isn't a new discussion. And  there should 
be no expectation that, on this point, the Supreme Court would  
automatically side with the authority of federal courts to decide federal  questions. 
 
Almost twenty years ago, I had a significant exchange at oral argument with 
 Justice Ginsburg over the Ninth Circuit's view that decisions of a federal 
 District Court or Court of Appeals would bind state courts on matters of 
federal  law. Judge Stephen Reinhardt on the 9th Circuit panel for Yniguez v. 
 Arizona, 939 F.2d 727, 736-37 (9th Cir. 1991), had said:
Despite  the authorities that take the view that the state courts are free 
to ignore  decisions of the lower federal courts on federal questions, we 
have serious  doubts as to the wisdom of this view. Having chosen to create 
the lower federal  courts, Congress may have intended that just as state 
courts have the final word  on questions of state law, the federal courts ought 
to have the final word on  questions of federal law. The contrary view could 
lead to considerable friction  between the state and federal courts as well 
as duplicative litigation.  Furthermore, the sparse authority on the subject 
appears to be concerned largely  with the stare  decisis effect of federal 
district court decisions on subsequent state  court actions, rather than the 
effect of decisions of the federal courts of  appeals; there may be valid 
reasons not to bind the state courts to a decision  of a single federal 
district judge—which is not even binding on the same judge  in a subsequent *737 
action—that are inapplicable to  decisions of the federal courts of appeals. 
 
The Supreme Court, however, apparently disagreed with Judge Reinhardt on  
this (as it does in many other cases). Justice Ginsburg's opinion for  the 
unanimous Court, 520 U.S. 43, 58 n. 11 (1997) had this footnote  11:
 
In  a remarkable passage, the Ninth Circuit addressed Yniguez's argument, 
opposing  intervention by AOE and Park, that the District Court's judgment 
was no  impediment to any state court proceeding AOE and Park might wish to 
bring,  because that judgment is not a binding precedent on Arizona's 
judiciary. See 939  F. 2d, at 735-736. The Court of Appeals questioned the wisdom of 
the view  expressed "in the academic literature," "by some state courts," 
and by "several  individual justices" that state courts are "coordinate and 
coequal with the  lower federal courts on matters of federal law."Id.,  at 
736 (footnote omitted). The Ninth Circuit acknowledged "there may be valid  
reasons not to bind the state courts to a decision of a single federal 
district  judge--which is not even binding on the same judge in a subsequent 
action." Id.,  at 736-737. However, the appellate panel added, those reasons "are 
inapplicable  to decisions of the federal courts of appeals." Id.,  at 737. 
But cf. ASARCO  Inc.  v. Kadish, _490 U.S.  605_ 
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?490+605) ,  617 (1989) ("state courts . . . possess 
the authority, absent a provision for  exclusive federal jurisdiction, to 
render binding judicial decisions that rest  on their own interpretations of 
federal law"); Lockhart v. Fretwell,_506 U.S.  364_ 
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?506+364) ,  375-376 (1993) (Thomas, J., concurring) 
(Supremacy Clause does not require state  courts to follow rulings by 
federal courts of appeals on questions of federal  law).
 
Barnaby  Zall
Of Counsel
Weinberg, Jacobs & Tolani, LLP
10411 Motor City  Drive, Suite 500
Bethesda, MD 20817
301-231-6943 (direct dial)
_bzall at aol.com_ (mailto:bzall at aol.com)  
 
 
_#SCOTUS Could Well  Decide Another Emergency Election Case Soon, This One 
With a Unanimous  Reversal_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67457) 
 
Posted  on _October 26, 2014 7:54  pm_ (http://electionl
awblog.org/?p=67457)  by _Rick  Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3) 

 
_Derek  Muller _ 
(http://excessofdemocracy.com/blog/2014/10/virgin-islands-supreme-court-ignores-federal-court-on-election-dispute) explains some 
amazing  doings out of the U.S. Virgin Islands.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141027/02af0129/attachment.html>