Reactions of State Supreme Courts to a U.S. Supreme Court Civil Liberties Decision

Abstract

decisions. Because of its direct relationship and administrative responsibilities, Supreme Court can exercise a closer supervisory control over lower federal courts than it can over state courts. But many controversial Supreme Court policies of last couple of decades have involved issues coming from state courts, e.g., obscenity prosecutions, right to counsel, desegregation, exclusion of illegally seized evidence, police interrogation practices, etc. Considering origin and structure of our federal system, a natural antagonism exists between Supreme Court and state courts- particularly states' highest appellate courts. While this was perhaps most dramatically illustrated in early classic struggles between John Marshall and Spencer Roane, mistrust and resistance is ever-present. It attained unusual visibility in 1958 when Council of State Chief Justices in a 36-8 vote adopted a resolution criticizing U.S. Supreme Court Justices for promoting an accelerating trend towards increasing power of national government and correspondingly contracted power of state governments and charging that judicial federalism was endangered by the extent of control over action of states which