State Court Response to Lower Federal Court Decisions that Interpret Federal Law
By Prof. Charles Kelso, Pacific McGeorge School of Law
State courts are of course bound by decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court that interpret federal law. This appears to follow logically from the Supremacy Clause and the fact that the Supreme Court has power to review the decisions of state courts with respect to federal law. Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 1 (1816).
There is much disagreement, however, on the weight that state appellate courts should give to decisions of lower Article III courts with respect to federal law. Some state courts have said that they are bound by federal court determinations of federal law questions. Other states emphasize their independence from such decisions. For example, the Colorado Supreme Court has said that "Lower federal courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts and their decisions are not conclusive on state courts, even on questions of federal law." Barber, 799 P.2d at 940. A few state courts say that they are bound by federal law as interpreted by the federal circuit in which they sit but not by the decisions of other lower federal courts.
California courts have said that they give "great weight" to decisions of lower federal courts regarding federal law. Stock v. Plunkett, 183 P. 651, 657 (Cal. 1919); People v. Bradley, 460 P.2d 129, 132 (Cal. 1969); In re Tyrell, 876 P.2d 519 (Cal. 1994); Conrad v. Bank of America, 53 Cal. Rptr. 336, 347 (Cal. App. 1996). It has been said by a California appellate court that even stronger weight should be given if all lower federal authorities have decided the same way. Shah v. Glendale Fed. Bank, 52 Cal. Rptr. 2d 417 (Cal. App. 1996). However, no greater weight will be given to decisions by the 9th Circuit than to decisions in any other circuit. Instead, the persuasiveness of lower federal court decisions is said to depend on the arguments they contain. Debtor Reorganizers v. State Board of Equalization, 130 Cal. Rptr. 64, 67 (Cal. App. 1976).
A thorough study of the subject, covering all states, may be found in Zeigler, "Gazing Into the Crystal Ball: Reflections on the Standards State Judges Should Use to Ascertain Federal Law," 40 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1143, 1152-53 (1999). Professor Zeigler recommends that state courts should ask how the Supreme Court would decide a question, and use lower federal court decisions as well as Supreme Court decisions to answer that question. This appears to be the way that California courts have approached the matter.