The Supreme Court first enunciated the independent and adequate state grounds doctrine in Murdock v. Memphis (1875). It later stated succinctly in Fox Film Corp. v. Muller (1935) the grounds for the doctrine: “the settled rule [is] that where the judgment of a state court [that has been appealed to the United States Supreme Court under Title 28, section 1257 of the U.S. Code, the present version of section 25 of the 1789 Judiciary Act] rests upon two grounds, one of which is federal and the other non‐federal in character, our jurisdiction fails if the non‐federal ground is independent of the federal ground and adequate to support the judgment” (p. 210). The basis of the rule is obvious in principle, but difficult in application. Assume a case appealed from a state supreme court under section 1257 that has two bases of decision, one resting on an interpretation of federal law and the other on an interpretation of state law. If the United States Supreme Court reversed for error in the federal ruling, on remand the state court would merely reaffirm the original result based on the state ruling. In such a case, the United States Supreme Court's action would in effect be an advisory opinion; it would provide an unnecessary ruling on a constitutional issue in disregard of Justice Louis D. Brandeis's caution in *Ashwander v. T.V.A. (1936); it would be a waste of both courts' time; and it would cause unnecessary annoyance to the state judiciary. More recently, the doctrine has been central to the growing role of state courts in deciding issues of individual rights. (See also State Constitutions and Individual Rights.)
— William M. Wiecek
