A state constitutional provision guarantees the right of a witness to confront all witnesses face to face. A trial court uses a state constitutional provision alone to overturn a conviction, without addressing any federal issue. Should the United States Supreme Court review the federal issue?

A state constitutional provision guarantees the right of a witness to confront all witnesses face to face. A trial court uses a state constitutional provision alone to overturn a conviction, without addressing any federal issue. Should the United States Supreme Court review the federal issue?

• A. Yes, because the federal issue might still be implicated even if the state ground is state law.
• B. No, because the judgment rests entirely on state law with no federal issue addressed.
• C. Yes, but only if the state court certifies a federal question as properly before the Court.
• D. No, because state law grounds always bar federal review.

Answer: (B)

The key concept is the independent and adequate state-ground doctrine. When a state court’s final judgment rests entirely on a state-law ground that is independent of federal law and adequately supports the outcome, the U.S. Supreme Court does not review the federal questions involved. Here, the trial court overturned the conviction solely because a state constitutional provision guarantees the right of a witness to confront all witnesses face to face. That is a pure state-law basis for the decision, with no federal issue addressed. Because the judgment rests on an independent and adequate state ground, the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review any federal issue, even if a federal question might be implicated. If the state-ground were not independent or not adequate—for example, if the decision also turned on a federal issue or the state ground wouldn’t support the outcome on its own—the federal issue could be reviewable. But in this scenario, the state-law basis alone bars federal review.

The key concept is the independent and adequate state-ground doctrine. When a state court’s final judgment rests entirely on a state-law ground that is independent of federal law and adequately supports the outcome, the U.S. Supreme Court does not review the federal questions involved.

Here, the trial court overturned the conviction solely because a state constitutional provision guarantees the right of a witness to confront all witnesses face to face. That is a pure state-law basis for the decision, with no federal issue addressed. Because the judgment rests on an independent and adequate state ground, the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review any federal issue, even if a federal question might be implicated.

If the state-ground were not independent or not adequate—for example, if the decision also turned on a federal issue or the state ground wouldn’t support the outcome on its own—the federal issue could be reviewable. But in this scenario, the state-law basis alone bars federal review.