Also known as: independent and adequate state grounds · adequate and independent state ground · adequate and independent state grounds · IASG doctrine
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A state-law basis for a state court judgment that is both sufficient to support the result reached and independent of federal law. Such a ground deprives the Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction over any federal questions presented because a decision on those questions would not alter the outcome. When a state court opinion blends state and federal analysis without a clear and express statement that the judgment rests on independent state grounds, the Supreme Court presumes jurisdiction and treats the decision as resting on federal law.
Horizon Wireless challenged a state fine for throttling data to a news site. The state supreme court affirmed in an opinion that discussed the state constitution's free speech clause alongside federal speech and communications doctrines without separating the two or declaring that state law alone controlled. Horizon seeks Supreme Court review. The Court presumes jurisdiction because the opinion lacks a clear statement of independent state grounds.
Ivan Ivanov was convicted of murder. He petitioned for habeas relief asserting newly discovered evidence of innocence. The state court denied relief after discussing both state procedural bars and federal constitutional standards in a single analysis. Ivanov seeks federal review. The Supreme Court presumes jurisdiction absent an explicit declaration that the state procedural rule alone decided the case.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ian Iverson challenged the warrantless search of his motor home. The state court upheld the search after citing both state privacy precedents and federal Fourth Amendment doctrine in an interwoven discussion. Iverson petitions for Supreme Court review. The Court treats the decision as resting on federal law because the opinion contains no clear statement of independent state grounds.
Indigo Textiles owned oceanfront land affected by a state restoration project. The state court rejected its takings claim after analyzing both the state constitution and federal takings precedents without declaring the state ground independent. The company seeks Supreme Court review. The Court presumes jurisdiction because the opinion fails to state clearly that state law alone supported the judgment.
Imran Iyer was questioned after invoking counsel. The state court admitted the statements after discussing both state constitutional protections and federal Sixth Amendment rules in a blended opinion. Iyer seeks federal review. The Supreme Court presumes jurisdiction because the state court did not expressly state that its ruling rested on independent state grounds.
Ivy Ibarra was convicted on evidence she claims was insufficient. The state court rejected her claim after referencing both state evidentiary standards and federal due process requirements without separating the analyses. Ibarra petitions for Supreme Court review. The Court presumes jurisdiction because the opinion lacks a clear statement that the state ground was independent.
The Supreme Court presumes jurisdiction when the state court opinion blends state and federal analysis without clearly and expressly stating that the judgment rests on independent state grounds. This presumption treats the decision as resting on federal law so that federal questions remain reviewable.
Supporting sources
A state court must include a clear and express statement that its judgment rests on state-law grounds independent of federal law. Without that statement the Supreme Court will not assume the state ground is independent even if the opinion emphasizes state provisions.
Supporting sources
No. A state court must do more than mention its own constitution. The opinion must clearly and expressly declare that the judgment rests on state law independent of federal law rather than interweaving the two bodies of doctrine.
Supporting sources
…rules for determining the primacy of state law, see, e. g. , Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins , 304 U. S. 64 (1938), the doctrine of adequate and independent state grounds, see, e. g. , Murdock v. Memphis , 20 Wall. 590 (1875); Michigan v. Long , 463 U. S. 1032 (1983), the whole jurisprudence of pre-emption, see, e. g. , Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp. ,…