State courts protect rights the federal Constitution does not guarantee

Evidence

Through the interpretation of their state constitutions, state supreme courts have had a major impact on educational policy and family law in their states, and their rulings have not been subject to review or reversal by the U.S. Supreme Court. School finance and same-sex marriage are but two of several areas in which state courts have relied on state constitutions to protect rights not guaranteed by the federal Constitution. State bills of rights contain various other guarantees that have no parallel in the federal Bill of Rights (see Box 11.2). Even rights protected by the federal Constitution may have a different scope under state constitutions, due to distinctive constitutional language or state constitutional history. For example, whereas inequalities in school funding did not violate the equal protection clause of the federal Constitution, the California Supreme Court held that they violated the equality requirements of the California Constitution. Since the early 1970s, state courts have increasingly looked to state guarantees to develop a body of state civil-liberties law, a phenomenon known as “the new judicial federalism.” — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 3371

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines the term ‘new judicial federalism’ as state courts relying on state guarantees since the early 1970s.
• XREF: connects to: Sixteen state courts found school finance systems unconstitutional after the federal door closed — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 3275; Civil-liberties litigation shifted to state courts when the Supreme Court grew conservative; State courts since the 1950s have radically expanded plaintiffs’ tort recovery — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 3399 (+4 more)