Marbury was about an act of Congress. A harder question for the young country was whether the U.S. Supreme Court could review the decisions of state courts. Section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 said it could, when a state's highest court ruled against a federal claim. Virginia's highest court disagreed.
Why it works
Five years later, in Cohens v. Virginia (1821), Chief Justice Marshall extended the reasoning to state criminal cases. The principle has held ever since: on a federal question, the U.S. Supreme Court reviews state courts; on a question of the state's own law, the state's highest court is final.
Judicial supremacy: Cooper v. Aaron
Key idea
Worked example: Federal or state question?
- Case 1 turns only on state law. The state's highest court has the last word.
- Case 2 decides a federal question. Under Martin, the U.S. Supreme Court may review it.
- If a state ruling rests on an adequate and independent state ground, the Supreme Court will not disturb it even if a federal issue is also present.
Answer: Only Case 2.
Worked example: How far does Cooper reach?
- Cooper said the Court's interpretation in Brown was the supreme law, binding state officials beyond the parties to the case.
- Departmentalists point to Presidents such as Jefferson, Jackson and Lincoln, who said they owed the Court obedience in a decided case but not agreement in general.
- Both sides agree that officials must obey a court judgment in a case; they disagree about whether the Court's reasoning binds everyone else in future matters.
Answer: The disagreement is about the reach of the Court's interpretations beyond the judgment. That debate continues; Cooper is the Court's strongest statement of its own supremacy.
Common mistake
The framers expected this. Federalist No. 80 argues that a federal judiciary is needed for "uniformity in the interpretation of the national laws," and Federalist No. 82 expects state courts to hear federal cases with appeals to the Supreme Court.