1. How should the United States Supreme Court dispose of the case if it believes that this interpretation of the federal Constitution by the state supreme court raises an important federal question and is incorrect on the merits?

The U.S. Supreme Court has complete discretion to hear cases that come to it by writ of certiorari. The cases that may be heard by certiorari include: (i) cases from the highest state courts where the constitutionality of a federal statute, federal treaty, or state statute is called into question or a state statute allegedly violates federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 1257; and (ii) all cases from federal courts of appeals. 28 U.S.C. § 1254.

The Court may determine whether a state court has reached a decision that is not in conformity with the U.S. Constitution, but it may not review state court decisions that merely adjudicate questions of state law; the Court's review of state court judgments is limited to questions of federal law.

Even if there is a federal question in the state court case, the Court may not review it if there is an «independent and adequate» state ground for the state court's decision. That is, if the same result would be reached even had the state court made a different decision on the federal question, the Court may not decide the case. This is because its opinion would in effect be an «advisory» one.

The state court may hold that a state statute violates both the state and federal constitutions. Such a holding may be achieved in one of two ways: (i) the state court may have independently interpreted the state constitutional provision, without relying directly on federal cases construing the federal constitutional provision; or (ii) the state court may have interpreted the state constitutional provision as being co-extensive with the comparable federal constitutional provision, and then attempted to follow the relevant federal case law. In that context, the Court may find that an independent and adequate state ground did not exist, allowing the Court to review it. However, the mere fact that a federal question is involved in a case is not sufficient to entitle the Court to review it. And, even if the Court is entitled to review a case, it will generally adjudicate only the federal issues.

B is correct. The Court has jurisdiction over the federal question raised in this case — the constitutionality of the state statute under the U.S. Constitution — and will exercise that jurisdiction because it has deemed the question important. However, the Court will only adjudicate the issue related to statute's violation of the U.S. Constitution, and will leave the interpretation of the statute under the state constitution to the state court. This is because when a state court interprets its own constitution co-extensively with the U.S. Constitution, as in this case here, there are no independent and adequate state grounds to support the decision. The Court may then review the case as to the federal issues, leaving the interpretation of the law under the state constitution to the state court.

A is incorrect. This answer is only partially correct. Although the Court has the power to hear the case and reverse the state court's decision with respect to the federal constitutional claim, it should then remand the case to the state court to determine the constitutionality of the statute under the state constitution. This is because state courts have the right to interpret their own constitutions and are not required to apply the Court's interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

C is incorrect. When a state court has interpreted a state constitutional provision co-extensively with the comparable federal constitutional provision, the Court may find that an independent and adequate state ground did not exist, allowing the Court to review it as to the federal question. When the Court is entitled to review a case, however, it will generally adjudicate only the federal issues. Therefore, because the state court here found the statute in violation of both the state and U.S. constitutional provisions, but the Court believes that the federal constitutional interpretation was incorrect, it may adjudicate the federal question and remand as to the state constitutional issue.

D is incorrect. This is an incorrect statement of law. A state government may properly seek review of an adverse decision in the U.S. Supreme Court, just like any other party, as long as the Court has proper jurisdiction over the case.