The Supreme Court may take state-case decisions only if there is no independent state-law ground of decision. Which statement describes the requirement?

• A. Requires no independent state-law ground of decision
• B. Requires an independent state-law ground
• C. Requires both state and federal grounds
• D. Requires a federal-question-based decision only

Answer: (A)

The key idea is that the Supreme Court cannot review a state-court decision if that decision rests on an independent state-law ground. An independent state ground is a basis for the ruling that can support the outcome entirely under state law, without reference to federal law. If such a state-ground exists, the decision is deemed final for purposes of Supreme Court review, and the Court lacks jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court may take a state-case decision only when there is no independent state-law ground to support it—i.e., the decision must hinge on a federal issue or otherwise fail to be fully supported by state law alone. That makes the statement describing the requirement the one that says there is no independent state-law ground. The other options run counter to how jurisdiction is determined: they either require an independent state ground, limit review to federal questions only, or insist on a combination of grounds that doesn’t reflect the actual rule.