 |
|
Polyphonic Federalism: State Constitutions in the Federal Courts |
|
| Because of the growing attention to state constitutions as independent sources of individual rights, plaintiffs increasingly raise claims under both state and federal constitutions. When brought in federal court, these dual challenges pose difficult jurisdictional problems. Adjudicating the state claim furthers the policy of avoiding federal constitutional questions, but presents the risk of federal intrusion into sensitive state policies. To resolve these doctrinal tensions, some courts invoke abstention to allow a state court to decide the state claim. This use of abstention, however, routes the federal constitutional issue through state court, substantially delaying the adjudication of the federal claim and impeding access to the federal forum. This Article develops a new framework for federal treatment of state constitutional claims. By analyzing the premises of existing federal courts doctrine in the novel context of dual constitutional challenges, the Article defends a robust role for federal courts in interpreting state constitutions. The Article argues that, in the proper circumstances, federal adjudication promotes the vindication of constitutional rights while facilitating a valuable federal-state dialogue regarding the scope of individual liberty. Recent litigation concerning the public display of religious symbols illustrates the benefits of federal interpretation of state constitutions. | |
|
|
|
Copyright
© 1999 by California Law Review, Inc. |
|