Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rendered a decision dealing with New York’s persistent felony offender statute that squarely conflicts with prior decisions of the New York Court of Appeals. When an event such as this occurs, a number of issues arise. Which decision must a state judge follow? What consequences will flow if a state judge ignores the federal decision? Finally, how can the conflict be resolved? This column will address these questions.
Twenty years ago, the Court of Appeals reminded state court judges that they are bound to follow the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretations of federal statutes and the federal constitution. However, the Court also noted that the interpretation of a federal constitutional question by a lower federal court is not binding on state courts, although it may serve as useful and persuasive authority.1 Thus, if a conflict exists between the Second Circuit and the New York State Court of Appeals, a state judge is bound by the ruling of our state’s highest court.2
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
