Revisiting Michigan v. Long after twenty years.

• Author: Simon, Matthew G.
• Position: Case Note

In the 1983 decision of Michigan v. Long, (2) the United States Supreme Court held that when a state court bases its decision primarily on federal law, or state grounds that are interwoven with federal law, the Court will assume that it has jurisdiction to review that case. (3) State courts, however, could avoid Supreme Court review if that court provides a plain statement indicating that the decision rests on adequate and independent state grounds. (4)

It has been almost twenty years since this landmark decision was handed down and the result has sparked much academic debate. This note attempts to add to this debate in several ways. Section I discusses the variety of standards that the United States Supreme Court has implemented to deal with problems arising under ambiguously grounded cases prior to Long. (5) Section II analyzes Long to discern the purpose of the case and the reasons for the Court's decision. (6) Next, Section III examines what goals were to be accomplished by the Court in adopting this new approach. (7) Section III explains the concerns that opponents, such as Justice Stevens, had regarding the effect of this new presumption.

Section IV examines the nature of the twenty-five subsequent cases that the Supreme Court has taken based on jurisdiction established in Michigan v. Long. (8) Once the Supreme Court determined that it had jurisdiction to hear these cases, the Court went on to reverse and remand these cases for proceedings consistent with its earlier opinion. As a result, Section IV also takes an extensive look at the reaction of the lower courts once the case was remanded--whether the state court accepted the Court's reasoning or whether it declined to follow it and, instead, analyzed the case under the state constitution. (9)

Section V examines whether the state courts made an effort to comply with Long by providing the Court with a plain statement that their judgments rested on independent and adequate state grounds. In contrast, a survey of the cases reveals that a number of cases failed to satisfy--consciously or through neglect, the Supreme Court's standard. (10)

Finally, Section VI discusses whether Long has successfully accomplished its purpose(s) or whether the Supreme Court overreached its jurisdiction. More specifically, this section examines whether the opponents of Long were accurate in warning that expanding the Court's jurisdiction would result in a swollen docket, tension and conflict between courts, and a flood of advisory opinions. (11)

After extracting the results from the note, a determination can be made that Long has not produced a bright-line conclusion. First, although it has been almost twenty years since the decision was handed down, some state courts have yet to realize the implications of the Long decision. As a consequence, some state courts have not adhered to the plain statement rule, even when seeking to rest their decision on their own state constitution. Second, although Long has provided the Court with a solid rule to follow instead of the ad hoc approaches used in the past, compliance with the rule has not achieved the goals that it was set out to accomplish. Thus, this note proposes a new and better approach for both the Supreme Court and state courts to follow. (12) The new approach for the Supreme Court, although not requiring literal compliance with Long, would not assume that it does not have jurisdiction in the absence of a statement to the contrary. This novel approach would give greater deference to the state courts if they make a bona-fide attempt to rest their decision on state grounds. This deference will permit the Court's goals in Long to be fully achieved, instead of having them only partially attained. Finally, the new approach for state courts would alert and require the courts to be conscious of the obligation that they have to clearly base their decisions on either state or federal grounds.

1. SUPREME COURT STANDARDS UNDER THE ADEQUATE AND INDEPENDENT STATE GROUNDS DOCTRINE

   The Supreme Court has used a variety of methods to handle problems of state grounds in the past. In the 1874 case of Murdock v. City of Memphis (13) the United States Supreme Court first held that it would not review a decision of the highest state court where that decision was based on adequate and independent state grounds. (14) State constitutional law scholars have suggested that there are at least three reasons for the Supreme Court's adoption of the adequate and independent state grounds doctrine. These include "judicial economy, comity and jurisdiction." (15) In particular, the adequate and independent grounds requirement preserves the precious resources of the Court, shows deference and respect for state courts in our federalist system and helps prevent weight-less advisory opinions. (16) Although the Murdock Court required state court decisions to rest on adequate and independent state grounds, this early effort resulted in a "laissez faire" approach to state court decisions. (17)

   This deference to state courts extended for approximately sixty years until 1934 when the United States Supreme Court decided Lynch v. New York. (18) Here, the Court could not determine whether a New York appellate court had rested its decision on state or federal law and consequently lacked jurisdiction to review the case. (19) The Court noted it was essential that a federal question be resolved in order to dispose of the issue at the state level. (20) Since the record in this case failed to establish the jurisdiction of the Court, the writ of certiorari was dismissed. (21) This began the Court's practice of dismissing cases as long as the ground the state court invoked was independent of a federal question.

   Soon thereafter, the Supreme Court took a different approach in Minnesota v. National Tea Company. (22) In this decision, it was unclear to what degree the Minnesota Supreme Court had relied on Federal Constitutional grounds when it rendered judgment. (23) To resolve this ambiguity, the United States Supreme Court stated that the necessary procedure would be to vacate the judgment and to remand the case to the state court so that the federal and state questions could be separated from each other. (24) As the Court stated in National Tea:

   It is important that this Court not indulge in needless dissertations on constitutional law. It is fundamental that state courts be left free and unfettered by us in interpreting their state constitutions. But it is equally important that ambiguous or obscure adjudications by state courts do not stand as barriers to a determination by this Court of the validity under the federal constitution of state action. (25) Five years later the Court adopted another principle to handle state court cases that were ambiguous as to whether their decision rested on adequate and independent grounds. In Herb v. Pitcairn, (26) the Court determined that there was a simple procedure to protect its jurisdiction in such cases. If there was a question as to whether or not the Supreme Court could entertain the case, the case was stayed and remitted to the state court for clarification. (27) Here, the Court held that the case would continue long enough to permit counsel to apply to the Supreme Court of Illinois for amendment or certificate, in order for the court to determine the applicable law as the basis for its judgment. (28)

   Finally, in cases decided immediately before Michigan v. Long, the United States Supreme Court began examining state law to determine whether--and to what extent--either federal or state law was the state courts' basis for the decision. For example, in Texas v. Brown, (29) the Supreme Court reviewed cases used by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. In its analysis, the Supreme Court determined that the state court relied squarely on the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. (30) Since the state court did not rest its decision on adequate and independent grounds, the Supreme Court concluded that it had jurisdiction to hear the case. (31)

2. ANALYSIS OF MICHIGAN V. LONG

   Defendant David Long was pulled over when the police observed his vehicle traveling at excessive speeds. (32) The police chased the car and found that the driver had pulled to the side of the road in a ditch. (33) When the police shined a light into the car, they noticed a leather case--possibly encasing a weapon. (34) The officer then lifted the armrest and discovered marijuana. (35) The Michigan Supreme Court eventually reversed the earlier conviction, holding that the Fourth Amendment only allowed a search of an individual during an investigatory stop that was necessary to protect the officer or others nearby. (36) As a consequence, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. (37)

   Before reaching the merits of the case, the United States Supreme Court considered Mr. Long's assertion that the Court was without jurisdiction to hear the case because the decision of the Michigan Supreme Court rested on adequate and independent state grounds. The Court first examined the principles the Court had previously used to determine whether references to state law constitute adequate and independent state grounds. (38) The Court candidly admitted that it had not yet developed a satisfying and consistent approach for resolving this jurisdictional issue. (39)

   Indeed, many of the approaches that the Court implemented failed to serve as the preferred approach. An examination of state law was inadequate because it required the Court to interpret state laws--areas which it is generally unfamiliar with--and many times led to delay and inefficiency. (40) Finally, the Court noted, dismissals lead only to inconsistencies in federal law if in fact a federal question exists. (41) Thus, the Court's respect for the independence of state courts, as well as its avoidance of rendering advisory opinions, led the Court to announce a new rule in determining the adequacy...