Adequate and Independent State Ground Doctrine--Takeaways

1. In the words of one commentator:

"A state court may rule that a state law is repugnant to the state constitution, and also find, as an independent, alternative holding, that the state law violates the U.S. Constitution. In this case, there is no federal question for the Supreme Court to review," because it must affirm the state court's judgment under the state constitution since "the U.S. Supreme Court cannot reverse the state court on an interpretation of the state constitution."

2."If the state court holds the state law valid under both state and federal constitutional provisions, then the Supreme Court may review. In that case, if it disagreed with the state court's view of the federal constitution...the state decision would be reversed [under the Supremacy Clause] regardless of the [state court's] interpretation of the state law."

3.Under Michigan v. Long, simply notice that in order for the adequate and independent state grounds doctrine to be triggered, the state court decision must indicate "clearly and expressly that it is alternatively based on bona fide, adequate, and independent grounds." If the state court opinion is ambiguous about whether it is based on  independent state grounds, federal courts will assume that the decision is based solely on federal grounds and the doctrine will not apply.