Quote:
Originally posted by leagleaze
I was thinking along the same lines of you when my boss came and asked me what I thought. I told him I wasn't really sure, but it seems to me that the lower level courts wouldn't have the authority to force the highest level court in a state to disregard a state law.
He said well what if the court says it violates the federal constitution? I said I am not sure, because it has been a while since I studied anything in this area, but it seems to me the Supreme Court would have to do that.
|
If it's a federal court interpreting state law, then all it's doing is "predicting" what course the state's courts would take. Obviously a state court is in a better position to determine what course the state's courts will take. Hence the certified question procedures (or whatever they're called).
But as I understand this case, the fed'l court ruled that
federal law barred enforcement of the state judicial code. At most, such a determination is persuasive. It's certainly not binding authority. Heck, in many districts, even another district court judge's rulings aren't binding, but are only persuasive. For the most part only circuit courts (fed.) establish precedent. Even then, that precedent is no more binding on a state court than on another circuit court. Ultimately, the Supremes would have to resolve any conflict.
