Judge issues final order upholding Alabama same-sex marriage

A federal judge in Alabama has issued a permanent injunction barring state officials from denying same-sex couples the right to marry in that state, according to court documents made public on Wednesday.

The order, filed on Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Callie Granade, came in response to a 2014 lawsuit challenging Alabama's ban on same-sex marriage, finalizing a decision Granade made in early 2015 that the state law was unconstitutional.

Arrest the Judge for Subverting the Rights of a Free State and tell the Feds to GO POUND SAND!

Because federal courts also adjudicate federal-law issues, the question has arisen whether state judges are in any sense bound by lower federal court decisions on constitutional questions. Almost universally the answer has been “no” for the simple reason that federal district and circuit courts have no appellate jurisdiction over state courts. “A decision of a federal district court judge is not binding precedent in either a different judicial district, the same judicial district, or even upon the same judge in a different case.” Camreta v. Greene, 131 S. Ct. 2020, 2033 n.7(2011) (quoting 18 J. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 134.02[1][d], p. 134-26 (3d ed. 2011)). Although decisions of state courts on federal questions are ultimately subject to review by the United States Supreme Court, 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a), as are decisions of federal courts, neither “coordinate” system reviews the decisions of the other. As a result, state courts may interpret the United States Constitution independently from and even contrary to the decisions of federal courts.

Numerous Alabama cases confirm this reasoning. “[I]n determining federal common law, we defer only to the holdings of the United States Supreme Court and our own interpretations of federal law. Legal principles and holdings from inferior federal courts have no controlling effect here, although they can serve as persuasive authority.” Glass v. Birmingham So.R.R., 905 So.2d 789, 794 (Ala. 2004). See also Dolgencorp,Inc. v. Taylor, 28 So. 3d 737, 748 (Ala. 2009) (noting that “United States district court decisions are not controlling authority in this Court”); Ex parte Hale, 6 So. 3d 452, 462 (Ala. 2008), as modified on denial of reh’g (Oct. 10, 2008) (”[W]e are not bound by the decisions of the Eleventh Circuit.”); Ex parte Johnson, 993 So. 2d 875, 886 (Ala. 2008) (”This Court is not bound by decisions of the United States Courts of Appeals or the United States District Courts.”); Buist v. Time Domain Corp., 926 So. 2d 290, 297 (Ala. 2005) (”United States district court cases ... can serve only as persuasive authority.”); Amerada Hess v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass, 627 So. 2d 367, 373 n.1 (Ala. 1993) (”This Court is not bound by decisions of lower federal courts.”); Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ryan, 589 So. 2d 165, 167 n.2 (Ala. 1991) (”Decisions of federal courts other than the United States Supreme Court, though persuasive, are not binding authority on this Court.”).

A recent detailed study of the courts of all 50 states and the District of Columbia determined that 46 states and the District of Columbia adopt the position that the precedents of lower federal courts are not binding in their jurisdictions. Wayne A. Logan, A House Divided: When State and Lower Federal Courts Disagree on Federal Constitutional Rights, 90 Notre Dame L. Rev. 235, 280-81 (2014). The position of three other states is uncertain. Only one state (Delaware) defers to the constitutional decisions of lower federal courts. Id. At 281.

Federal courts have recognized that state-court review of constitutional questions is independent of the same authority lodged in the lower federal courts. “In passing on federal constitutional questions, the state courts and the lower federal courts have the same responsibility and occupy the same position; there is a parallelism but not paramountcy for both sets of courts are governed by the same reviewing authority of the Supreme Court.” United States ex rel.Lawrence v. Woods, 432 F.2d 1072, 1075 (7th Cir. 1970).

Although consistency between state and federal courts is desirable in that it promotes respect for the law and prevents litigants from forum-shopping, there is nothing inherently offensive about two sovereigns reaching different legal conclusions. Indeed, such results were contemplated by our federal system, and neither sovereign is required to, nor expected to, yield to the other.

Surrick v. Killion, 449 F. 3d 520, 535 (3rd Cir. 2006).

The United States Supreme Court has acknowledged that state courts “possess the authority, absent a provision for exclusive federal jurisdiction, to render binding judicial decisions that rest on their own interpretations of federal law.” Asarco Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605, 617 (1989). Two justices of the United States Supreme Court in special writings have elaborated on this principle.

The Supremacy Clause demands that state law yield to federal law, but neither federal supremacy nor any other principle of federal law requires that a state court’s interpretation of federal law give way to a (lower) federal court’s interpretation. In our federal system, a state trial court’s interpretation of federal law is no less authoritative than that of the federal court of appeals in whose circuit the trial court is located.

Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 375-76 (1993) (Thomas, J., concurring). See also Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 482, n. 3 (1974) (Rehnquist, J., concurring) (noting that a lower- federal-court decision “would not be accorded the stare decisis effect in state court that it would have in a subsequent proceeding within the same federal jurisdiction. Although the state court would not be compelled to follow the federal holding, the opinion might, of course, be viewed as highly persuasive.”).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.