A plaintiff challenges a state tax law, alleging it violates the Equal Protection Clauses of both the U.S. Constitution and the state constitution. The state supreme court agrees and holds the tax invalid under both. The United States Supreme Court is asked to review the federal issue. How should the Court dispose?

A plaintiff challenges a state tax law, alleging it violates the Equal Protection Clauses of both the U.S. Constitution and the state constitution. The state supreme court agrees and holds the tax invalid under both. The United States Supreme Court is asked to review the federal issue. How should the Court dispose?

• A. Affirm the state court's interpretation of the federal question.
• B. Reverse as to the federal question and remand to allow for further adjudication by the state court.
• C. Find independent and adequate state grounds and dismiss the federal question.
• D. Dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.

Answer: (B)

The question tests how the Supreme Court handles a state-court decision on a federal constitutional issue when the state court also rests on state grounds. When a state court strikes down a law based on a federal constitutional claim and the Supreme Court is asked to review that federal question, the Court will typically address the federal issue itself. If the state court’s ruling rests on both federal and independent state grounds, the proper move is to reverse the federal ruling and remand to give the state court a chance to proceed with state-law matters consistent with the federal ruling. Here, the state court invalidated the tax under both the U.S. Equal Protection Clause and the state equal protection clause. The Supreme Court should reverse the decision on the federal issue (finding the federal equal protection claim does not require that outcome) and remand for the state court to address the remainder of the case in light of the federal ruling, applying the federal standard to the facts and leaving any state-law or remedy issues for the state courts to resolve. Dismissal for lack of jurisdiction isn’t appropriate because the Court does have jurisdiction to review the federal question. Affirming the state court would leave an error in the federal ruling uncorrected. Facing independent state grounds would justify dismissal only if the state grounds were truly independent and adequate to sustain the decision, which isn’t stated here.

The question tests how the Supreme Court handles a state-court decision on a federal constitutional issue when the state court also rests on state grounds. When a state court strikes down a law based on a federal constitutional claim and the Supreme Court is asked to review that federal question, the Court will typically address the federal issue itself. If the state court’s ruling rests on both federal and independent state grounds, the proper move is to reverse the federal ruling and remand to give the state court a chance to proceed with state-law matters consistent with the federal ruling.

Here, the state court invalidated the tax under both the U.S. Equal Protection Clause and the state equal protection clause. The Supreme Court should reverse the decision on the federal issue (finding the federal equal protection claim does not require that outcome) and remand for the state court to address the remainder of the case in light of the federal ruling, applying the federal standard to the facts and leaving any state-law or remedy issues for the state courts to resolve.

Dismissal for lack of jurisdiction isn’t appropriate because the Court does have jurisdiction to review the federal question. Affirming the state court would leave an error in the federal ruling uncorrected. Facing independent state grounds would justify dismissal only if the state grounds were truly independent and adequate to sustain the decision, which isn’t stated here.