Michigan v. Long and Its Effect on Colorado Court Decisions
| Publication year | 1984 |
| Pages | 63 |
1984, January, Pg. 63. Michigan v. Long and Its Effect On Colorado Court Decisions
In Michigan v. Long,(fn1) the U.S. Supreme Court set two precedents: (1) it extended the scope of protective searches under Terry v. Ohio(fn2) to the passenger compartment of an automobile; and (2) it created a presumption of U.S. Supreme Court jurisdiction over state court decisions, unless state grounds are explicitly cited. This article discusses the latter point, presumption of federal jurisdiction.
The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that, since federal constitutional guarantees are only the minimum standard which must be followed by states, states are free to expand upon decisions based on their own constitutions and statutes.(fn3) Furthermore, decisions based on state law are not reviewable in the federal courts, as long as federal constitutional guarantees are upheld.(fn4)
In Michigan, the Court held that it had jurisdiction to review the decision of the Michigan Supreme Court, even when state constitutional grounds are cited, "... in the absence of a plain statement that the decision below rested in an adequate and independent state ground."(fn5) The significance of this holding is that it makes it more difficult for an individual to assert constitutional rights under state constitutions, while making it easier for "aggrieved" states to undermine attempts by state courts to provide protections for its citizens beyond the federal constitution.
Criticism of this new presumption of federal jurisdiction is premised on two grounds: (1) the facts in Michigan were such that a sweeping rule was not needed to decide the case, and (2) the rule announced by the Court is an unwarranted departure from precedent. However, Colorado should be relatively unaffected by the Michigan case, since the Colorado Supreme Court has long felt free to depart from federal decisions, basing its holdings on the Colorado Constitution. When doing so, the Colorado court usually explicitly rejects the federal precedent and clearly states the reasons for its rejection. Some areas to note in particular include: search and seizure,(fn6) double jeopardy,(fn7) equal protection,(fn8) due process,(fn9) standing(fn10) and condemnation of private land for public use.(fn11)
In stating the presumption for federal jurisdiction, the Court in Michigan noted:
Rather, in determining, as we must, whether we have jurisdiction to review a case that is alleged to rest on state grounds (citation omitted), we merely assume that there are no such grounds when it is not clear from the opinion itself that the state court relied upon an adequate and independent state ground and when it fairly appears that the state court rested its decision primarily on federal law.(fn12)
The Michigan Supreme Court made only two references to its state constitution and only in conjunction with the corresponding federal provision. No state cases were cited, except for one in a footnote which did not address the issue at hand.(fn13)
Assuming arguendo that jurisdiction was proper, the U.S. Supreme Court could have correctly mentioned the dearth of state precedents cited by the Michigan Supreme Court as a rationale for overcoming the presumption against jurisdiction. Instead, a rule of law was created where none was needed to decide the case. The needless creation of precedent is contrary to the general principle of deciding a case on its narrowest possible grounds.(fn14)
The Court thus created a precedent when none was needed to assert jurisdiction. No attempt was made to ascertain whether federal or state grounds was the basis for the Michigan Supreme Court decision, assuming the Court had some doubt as to which was the basis. The assumption of jurisdiction is broad enough so that state courts and litigants have no assurances that their decisions will be left intact, even if the test enunciated by the Court, quoted above, is followed to the letter.
It is ironic that while the U.S. Supreme Court is...
To continue reading
Request your trial