In a case where a baseball fan incites a riot and the state supreme court reverses the conviction based on an independent and adequate state-law ground, what is the most appropriate action for the Supreme Court to take on a petition for certiorari?

In a case where a baseball fan incites a riot and the state supreme court reverses the conviction based on an independent and adequate state-law ground, what is the most appropriate action for the Supreme Court to take on a petition for certiorari?

• A. Grant certiorari and review the federal issue on the merits.
• B. Deny certiorari because the state ground is adequate and independent.
• C. Dismiss the writ as improvidently granted.
• D. Remand to the state court for reconsideration of federal issues.

Answer: (C)

The key idea is the independent and adequate state-ground doctrine. When a state supreme court reverses a conviction or decision based on a state-law ground that is both independent of any federal issue and adequate to support the result, the Supreme Court cannot review the federal question. The federal issue never rises to the Court because the state ruling would stand even if the federal issue were resolved differently. Given that the state court’s reversal rests on an independent and adequate state ground, the proper action for a petition for certiorari is to dismiss the writ as improvidently granted. This recognizes that certiorari should not have been granted because the federal question is not reviewable due to the state-law ground. Why not other options? Granting cert to review the federal issue would conflict with the jurisdictional rule, since the state ground blocks review. Denying cert is not the correct procedural posture when certiorari has already been granted and the jurisdictional barrier exists. Remanding to reconsider federal issues wouldn’t cure the lack of jurisdiction; the state-ground independence and adequacy remain, so the federal question remains unreviewable. In short, when an independent and adequate state ground supports the decision, the Supreme Court dismisses the writ as improvidently granted.

The key idea is the independent and adequate state-ground doctrine. When a state supreme court reverses a conviction or decision based on a state-law ground that is both independent of any federal issue and adequate to support the result, the Supreme Court cannot review the federal question. The federal issue never rises to the Court because the state ruling would stand even if the federal issue were resolved differently.

Given that the state court’s reversal rests on an independent and adequate state ground, the proper action for a petition for certiorari is to dismiss the writ as improvidently granted. This recognizes that certiorari should not have been granted because the federal question is not reviewable due to the state-law ground.

Why not other options? Granting cert to review the federal issue would conflict with the jurisdictional rule, since the state ground blocks review. Denying cert is not the correct procedural posture when certiorari has already been granted and the jurisdictional barrier exists. Remanding to reconsider federal issues wouldn’t cure the lack of jurisdiction; the state-ground independence and adequacy remain, so the federal question remains unreviewable.

In short, when an independent and adequate state ground supports the decision, the Supreme Court dismisses the writ as improvidently granted.