State judges were expected to favor state law over federal claims

Evidence

The Judiciary Act of 1789 also circumscribed the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Court could not review federal court rulings in criminal cases, and it could review state rulings involving federal constitutional claims only if state judges rejected the constitutional claim and upheld the challenged state law. Underlying the second limitation was the assumption that, although state judges might be prone to favor state law against federal claims, they would be unlikely to expand federal restrictions on the governing power of their states. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 305

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Change in federal court orientation diverts rights litigation into state courts and constitutions. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1729; Party affiliation reliably predicts how state court judges decide cases — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 432; Elected judges face re-election pressure that can push decisions away from law — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law: A Definitive Look at…, 780 (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• Party affiliation reliably predicts how state court judges decide cases #complicates (0.75) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 432
• Elected judges face re-election pressure that can push decisions away from law #complicates (0.72) — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 780
• Elected judges may bend rulings toward voter preferences to secure re-election. #complicates (0.72) — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 780