283 U.S. 96 (1931)
COLUMBUS & GREENVILLE RAILWAY COMPANY ET AL.
v.
MILLER, STATE TAX COLLECTOR, FOR THE USE OF THE MISSISSIPPI LEVEE DISTRICT.
No. 195.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued March 6, 9, 1931.
Decided April 13, 1931.
APPEAL FROM AND CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI.
*97 Messrs. Wm. H. Watkins and R.C. Stovall, with whom Messrs. A.F. Gardner, Sr., A.F. Gardner, Jr., and H.T. Odom were on the brief, for appellants.
Mr. Simon Rosenthal, with whom Messrs. George Butler, J. Ed. Franklin, Lamar F. Easterling, and C.B. Snow were on the brief, for appellee.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.
On behalf of the Mississippi Levee District, the State Tax Collector of Mississippi sued the Columbus & Greenville Railway Company to collect a tax for the years 1926 and 1927, under chapter 282 of the Laws of Mississippi of 1914, at the rate of $350 a mile on its main line within the District. The Railway Company had paid the tax at the rate of $50 a mile, pursuant to the provisions of an amending act, chapter 259 of the Laws of 1926, which fixed the tax at that rate for a railroad having less than twenty-five miles of main line within the district. The Railway Company fell within the amendment, as its main line in the district was only 18.41 miles in length. The Collector alleged in his declaration that the Act of 1926 was unconstitutional and void because the bill providing therefor had not been published, in advance of introduction, as required by section 234 of the state constitution. Demurrer to the declaration was sustained by the Circuit Court *98 of Montgomery County, but its judgment was reversed by the Supreme Court of the State upon the ground that the classification by the Act of 1926 was "arbitrary and unreasonable, and therefore in violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution." 154 Miss. 317; 122 So. 366.
The Railway Company then pleaded that it was not indebted, and gave notice that it would undertake to show that the classification of the Act of 1926 was valid, and, further, that the statute laying the tax demanded by the plaintiff, that is, the Act of 1914, was itself unreasonable and violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Upon the trial, evidence offered by the defendant in support of these allegations was received subject to objection which the Circuit Court finally sustained, and judgment was entered for the amount of the tax on the basis of $350 a mile. This judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State in the view that the case was ruled by its previous opinion and that the excluded evidence, if competent, could not have changed the result. 127 So. 784.
An appeal was taken to this Court and a motion to dismiss or affirm was postponed to the hearing on the merits. At the same time, this Court granted a writ of certiorari. 282 U.S. 825.
That part of the State of Mississippi, known as the Mississippi Delta, is divided into two districts, the Mississippi Levee District and the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta Levee District, to the end that each district may maintain the levees necessary to protect the lands within it. The Mississippi Levee District, created in 1865, comprises the southern part of the Delta. It is said that four methods of taxation are used to maintain this district, an acreage tax, a cotton tax, an ad valorem tax on property generally, and a mileage tax on railroad companies which it appears is in lieu of the ad valorem tax. Miller v. Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. Co., 160 Miss. ___; 132 So. 597. *99 Prior legislation providing for the mileage tax on railroads was amended by chapter 282 of the Laws of 1914 so as to impose a tax of $350 a mile on the main line of standard gauge railroads within the district, $87.50 a mile on narrow gauge railroads, and $210 a mile on standard gauge branch lines. Chapter 259 of the Laws of 1926 added to the statute the following proviso: "provided further that the tax per mile per annum on the main line of any railroad company which does not own in excess of twenty-five miles of railroad in the Mississippi Levee District shall be $50 per annum." The Supreme Court of the State, holding that this proviso was invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment, did not deem it necessary to decide whether this ruling invalidated merely the proviso or the entire Act of 1926, as in either event the tax to be paid would be the same.
We are not concerned with any question of the State's policy in imposing taxes, or with the various methods employed in the levee district, apart from the application of the Fourteenth Amendment. The question as to the validity of the Act of 1926 is raised only by the State Tax Collector in his official capacity, as one acting solely under the authority of the legislature whose requirement he contests. The only person taxed by the statute whose rights are before the Court is the petitioner, which seeks to uphold the state legislation which defines its liability and with which it has complied. The questions which the Collector sought to raise under the state constitution have not been passed upon by the state court. While, so far as state practice is concerned, the authority of a public officer to assail in the courts of the State the constitutional validity of a state statute is a local question,[1] this fact does not alter the fundamental principle, governing the determination of the federal question by this Court, that the protection *100 of the Fourteenth Amendment against state action is only for the benefit of those who are injured through the invasions of personal or property rights or through the discriminations which the Amendment forbids.[2] The constitutional guaranty does not extend to the mere interest of an official, as such, who has not been deprived of his property without due process of law or denied the equal protection of the laws.[3]
Apart from this consideration, the only question presented is whether the Act of 1926 with its proviso, or the proviso alone, is invalid upon its face. The evidence offered to support the classification was excluded, and was treated as being in any event without effect, and the case thus stood before the state court upon the bare terms of the statute. If the facts shown by the evidence, thus excluded, were treated as established (Fairmont Creamery Company v. Minnesota, 274 U.S. 1, 5), they would have no tendency to invalidate the statute, but rather to sustain it. It appears that there are only two main lines of railroad within the district, that of the Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Company, extending north and south through the entire levee district parallel with the Mississippi River, and that of the petitioner running east from the Mississippi River. The petitioner sought to show not only the difference in location but that the condition of its road and its equipment was inferior to that of the other railroad. The petitioner also offered to prove, and the fact was stipulated subject to objection, that the State Tax Commission had assessed for ad valorem *101 taxes the railroad of the petitioner within the levee district at $1,000 a mile, and that of the other railroad at $32,000 a mile and, further, that in the classification of railroads by the State Railroad Commission for the purpose of levying a privilege tax, the petitioner was placed with respect to its main line in class three and the other railroad in class one.
Without attempting to appraise the excluded evidence with respect to the asserted differences between the two railroads, it is sufficient to say that, if this evidence be disregarded, the record shows no factual basis for holding the classification of the statute invalid other than the simple fact that the classification is according to mileage. But the mere selection by the state legislature, in the exercise of its broad discretion in the imposition of taxes,[4] of a mileage basis, and the establishment of a particular class of railroads having less than twenty-five miles of main line within the district, cannot be regarded, in the absence of any further showing, as arbitrary and as constituting a violation of the Federal Constitution. On the contrary, a classification of this sort has frequently been sustained. In Dow v. Beidelman, 125 U.S. 680, 691, a statute classifying railroads according to mileage, with respect to the passenger fares to be charged, was sustained. The Court said: "Whether the classification shall be according to the amount of passengers and freight carried, or of gross or net earnings, during a previous year, or according to the simpler and more constant test of the length of the line of the railroad, is a matter within the discretion of the legislature." To the same effect is Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Conley, 230 U.S. 513. Similar rulings have been made in upholding other regulatory statutes; e.g. a statute relating to the heating of passenger cars but not applying to railroads less than *102 fifty miles in length (New York, New Haven & Hartford R. Co. v. New York, 165 U.S. 628, 633, 634), and statutes requiring a minimum number of men in train crews but not applying to railroads of less than a stated mileage. (Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Arkansas, 219 U.S. 453; St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. v. Arkansas, 240 U.S. 518.) See, also, Wilson v. New, 243 U.S. 332, 354.
As we find no ground for holding the Act of 1926 to be invalid under the Federal Constitution, it is unnecessary to consider the questions discussed in relation to the Act of 1914.
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Judgment reversed.
NOTES
[1]  Smith v. Indiana, 191 U.S. 138, 148; Huntington v. Worthen, 120 U.S. 97, 101; Stewart v. Kansas City, 239 U.S. 14, 16.
[2]  Clark v. Kansas City, 176 U.S. 114, 118; Standard Stock Co. v. Wright, 225 U.S. 540, 550; Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 488; Roberts & Schaefer Co. v. Emmerson, 271 U.S. 50, 54, 55; Liberty Warehouse Co. v. Burley Tobacco Growers' Assn., 276 U.S. 71, 88.
[3]  Smith v. Indiana, supra; Braxton County Court v. West Virginia, 208 U.S. 192, 197, 198; Marshall v. Dye, 231 U.S. 250, 257; Stewart v. Kansas City, supra.
[4]  Bell's Gap R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U.S. 232, 237; Ohio Oil Co. v. Conway, 281 U.S. 146, 159.


304 U.S. 584
58 S.Ct. 1059
82 L.Ed. 1546
Charlotte MOREHEAD et al., petitioners,v.The CENTRAL TRUST COMPANY OF CINCINNATI, as  executor, etc.*
No. 1022.
Supreme Court of the United States
May 31, 1938

Mr. George S. Hawke, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for petitioners.
Mr. William J. Rielly, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for respondent.

1
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio denied.

*
 Rehearing denied 59 S.Ct. 59, 83 L.Ed.  -  - .


393 U.S. 324 (1969)
GLOVER ET AL.
v.
ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY CO. ET AL.
No. 38.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued November 14, 1968.
Decided January 14, 1969.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT.
William M. Acker, Jr., argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioners.
Donald W. Fisher argued the cause for respondents. On the brief for respondent St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. was Paul R. Moody. With Mr. Fisher on the brief for respondent Brotherhood of Railway Carmen of America were Richard R. Lyman and Jerome A. Cooper.
*325 MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.
The 13 petitioners here, eight Negroes and five white men, are all employees of the respondent railroad, whose duties are to repair and maintain passenger and freight cars in the railroad's yard at Birmingham, Alabama. They brought this action in the United States District Court against the railroad and the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen of America, which is the duly selected bargaining agent for carmen employees. The complaint alleged that all of the plaintiffs were qualified by experience to do the work of carmen but that all had been classified as carmen helpers for many years and had not been promoted. The complaint went on to allege the following explanation for the railroad's refusal to promote them:
"In order to avoid calling out Negro plaintiffs to work as Carmen and to avoid promoting Negro plaintiffs to Carmen, in accordance with a tacit understanding between defendants and a subrosa agreement between the Frisco and certain officials of the Brotherhood, defendant Frisco has for a considerable period of time used so-called `apprentices' to do the work of Carmen instead of calling out plaintiffs to do said work as required by the Collective Bargaining Agreement as properly and customarily interpreted; and the Frisco has used this means to avoid giving plaintiffs work at Carmen wage scale and permanent jobs in the classification of Carmen. This denial to plaintiffs of work as Carmen has been contrary to previous custom and practice by defendants in regard to seniority as far as `Upgrade Carmen' are concerned. Defendant Frisco is not calling any of plaintiffs to work as Carmen in order to avoid having to promote any Negroes to Carmen."
*326 The complaint also claimed that each plaintiff had lost in excess of $10,000 in wages as the result of being a victim of "an invidious racial discrimination," and prayed for individual damages, for an injunction to cause the defendants to cease and desist from their discrimination against petitioners and their class and "for any further, or different relief as may be meet and proper . . . ." The respondents moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground, among others, that petitioners had not exhausted the administrative remedies provided for them by the grievance machinery in the collective bargaining agreement, in the constitution of the Brotherhood, and before the National Railroad Adjustment Board. The District Court, in an unreported opinion, sustained the motion to dismiss, and the petitioners then filed the following amendment to their complaint:
"On many occasions the Negro plaintiffs through one or more of their number, have complained both to representatives of the Brotherhood and to representatives of the Company about the foregoing discrimination and violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Said Negro plaintiffs have also called upon the Brotherhood to process a grievance on their behalf with the Company under the machinery provided by the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Although a representative of the Brotherhood once indicated to the Negro plaintiffs that the Brotherhood would `investigate the situation,' nothing concrete was ever done by the Brotherhood and no grievance was ever filed. Other representatives of the Brotherhood told the Negro plaintiffs time and time again: (a) that they were kidding themselves if they thought they could ever get white men's jobs; (b) that nothing would ever be done for them; and (c) that to file a formal complaint with the Brotherhood or with the Company would be a waste of their *327 time. They were told the same things by local representatives of the Company. They were treated with condescension by both Brotherhood and Company, sometimes laughed at and sometimes `cussed,' but never taken seriously. When the white plaintiffs brought their plight to the attention of the Brotherhood, they got substantially the same treatment which the Negro plaintiffs received, except that they were called `nigger lovers' and were told that they were just inviting trouble. Both defendants attempted to intimidate plaintiffs, Negro and white. Plaintiffs have been completely frustrated in their efforts to present their grievance either to the Brotherhood or to the Company. In addition, to employ the purported internal complaint machinery within the Brotherhood itself would only add to plaintiffs' frustration and, if ever possible to pursue it to a final conclusion it would take years. To process a grievance with the Company without the cooperation of the Brotherhood would be a useless formality. To take the grievance before the National Railroad Adjustment Board (a tribunal composed of paid representatives from the Companies and the Brotherhoods) would consume an average time of five years, and would be completely futile under the instant circumstances where the Company and the Brotherhood are working `hand-in-glove.' All of these purported administrative remedies are wholly inadequate, and to require their complete exhaustion would simply add to plaintiffs' expense and frustration, would exhaust plaintiffs, and would amount to a denial of `due process of law,' prohibited by the Constitution of the United States."
The District Court again sustained the motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, agreeing *328 with the opinion of the District Court and adding several authorities to those cited by the District Court, 386 F. 2d 452 (C. A. 5th Cir. 1967), and we granted certiorari, 390 U. S. 1023 (1968). We think that none of the authorities cited in either opinion justify the dismissal and reverse and remand the case for trial in the District Court.
It is true, as the respondents here contend, that this Court has held that the Railroad Adjustment Board has exclusive jurisdiction, under § 3 First (i) of the Railway Labor Act, set out below,[1] to interpret the meaning of the terms of a collective bargaining agreement.[2] We have held, however, that § 3 First (i) by its own terms applies only to "disputes between an employee or group of employees and a carrier or carriers." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U. S. 41, 44 (1957). In Conley, as in the present case, the suit was one brought by the employees against their own union, claiming breach of the duty of fair representation, and we held that the jurisdiction of the federal courts was clear. In the present case, of course, the petitioners sought relief not only against their union but also against the railroad, and it might at one time have been thought that the jurisdiction of the Railroad Adjustment *329 Board remains exclusive in a fair representation case, to the extent that relief is sought against the railroad for alleged discriminatory performance of an agreement validly entered into and lawful in its terms. See, e. g., Hayes v. Union Pacific R. Co., 184 F. 2d 337 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1950), cert. denied, 340 U. S. 942 (1951). This view, however, was squarely rejected in the Conley case, where we said, "[F]or the reasons set forth in the text we believe [Hayes, supra] was decided incorrectly." 355 U. S., at 44, n. 4. In this situation no meaningful distinction can be drawn between discriminatory action in negotiating the terms of an agreement and discriminatory enforcement of terms that are fair on their face. Moreover, although the employer is made a party to insure complete and meaningful relief, it still remains true that in essence the "dispute" is one between some employees on the one hand and the union and management together on the other, not one "between an employee or group of employees and a carrier or carriers." Finally, the Railroad Adjustment Board has no power to order the kind of relief necessary even with respect to the railroad alone, in order to end entirely abuses of the sort alleged here. The federal courts may therefore properly exercise jurisdiction over both the union and the railroad. See also Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 323 U. S. 192 (1944).
The respondents also argue that the complaint should be dismissed because of the petitioners' failure to exhaust their remedies under the collective bargaining agreement, the union constitution, and the Railway Labor Act. They rely particularly on Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox, 379 U. S. 650 (1965), and Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U. S. 171 (1967). The Court has made clear, however, that the exhaustion requirement is subject to a number of exceptions for the variety of situations in which doctrinaire application of the exhaustion rule would defeat *330 the overall purposes of federal labor relations policy. Thus, in Vaca itself the Court stressed:
"[I]t is settled that the employee must at least attempt to exhaust exclusive grievance and arbitration procedures established by the bargaining agreement. Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox, 379 U. S. 650. However, because these contractual remedies have been devised and are often controlled by the union and the employer, they may well prove unsatisfactory or unworkable for the individual grievant. The problem then is to determine under what circumstances the individual employee may obtain judicial review of his breach-of-contract claim despite his failure to secure relief through the contractual remedial procedures." 386 U. S., at 184-185.
The Court in Vaca went on to specify at least two situations in which suit could be brought by the employee despite his failure to exhaust fully his contractual remedies. The circumstances of the present case call into play another of the most obvious exceptions to the exhaustion requirement - the situation where the effort to proceed formally with contractual or administrative remedies would be wholly futile. In a line of cases beginning with Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., supra, the Court has rejected the contention that employees alleging racial discrimination should be required to submit their controversy to "a group which is in large part chosen by the [defendants] against whom their real complaint is made." 323 U. S., at 206. And the reasons which prompted the Court to hold as it did about the inadequacy of a remedy before the Adjustment Board apply with equal force to any remedy administered by the union, by the company, or both, to pass on claims by the very employees whose rights they have been charged *331 with neglecting and betraying. Here the complaint alleges in the clearest possible terms that a formal effort to pursue contractual or administrative remedies would be absolutely futile. Under these circumstances, the attempt to exhaust contractual remedies, required under Maddox, is easily satisfied by petitioners' repeated complaints to company and union officials, and no time-consuming formalities should be demanded of them. The allegations are that the bargaining representatives of the car employees have been acting in concert with the railroad employer to set up schemes and contrivances to bar Negroes from promotion wholly because of race. If that is true, insistence that petitioners exhaust the remedies administered by the union and the railroad would only serve to prolong the deprivation of rights to which these petitioners according to their allegations are justly and legally entitled.
The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for trial.
Reversed and remanded.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, concurring.
I join in the Court's opinion with one addition and one reservation.
I believe that Richardson v. Texas & N. O. R. Co., 242 F. 2d 230 (1957), decided by the Fifth Circuit some years before its decision in the present case, also supports today's holding that the federal courts may grant railroad employees ancillary relief against an employer who aids and abets their union in breaching its duty of fair representation. A contrary result would bifurcate, and needlessly proliferate, litigation.
I think it clear that footnote 4 of Conley v. Gibson, 355 U. S. 41, 44 (1957), did not - as some of the language in today's opinion, ante, at 328-329, might otherwise imply - address itself to the question now decided, which *332 is one of first impression in this Court. Conley was a suit against the union only. A careful reading of Hayes v. Union Pacific R. Co., 184 F. 2d 337 (1950); the District Court's opinion in Conley, 138 F. Supp. 60 (1955), which relied on Hayes; and this Court's opinion in Conley makes it readily apparent that our disapproval of Hayes had nothing to do with the question of jurisdiction over an employer in a fair representation action.
NOTES
[1]  In full, § 3 First (i) reads:

"The disputes between an employee or group of employees and a carrier or carriers growing out of grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions, including cases pending and unadjusted on the date of approval of this Act [June 21, 1934], shall be handled in the usual manner up to and including the chief operating officer of the carrier designated to handle such disputes; but, failing to reach an adjustment in this manner, the disputes may be referred by petition of the parties or by either party to the appropriate division of the Adjustment Board with a full statement of the facts and all supporting data bearing upon the disputes." 48 Stat. 1191, 45 U. S. C. § 153 First (i).
[2]  See, e. g., Slocum v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 339 U. S. 239.


127 U.S. 113 (1888)
LAWRENCE
v.
MERRITT.
No. 213.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued April 10, 1888.
Decided April 23, 1888.
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.
Mr. Edwin B. Smith for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. Solicitor General for defendant in error.
*114 MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
The plaintiffs in error, Benjamin and Phineas Lawrence, brought suit in the court below against Edwin A. Merritt, the former collector of the port of New York, for the recovery of an alleged excess of duties levied by him and paid by them upon an importation of what is called "tissue paper." Schedule M of § 2504 of the Revised Statutes provides for the imposition of the following duties: "Paper, sized or glued, suitable only for printing paper, twenty-five per centum ad valorem; printing, unsized, used for books and newspapers exclusively, twenty per centum ad valorem; manufactured of, or of which paper is a component material, not otherwise provided for, thirty-five per centum ad valorem; sheathing paper, ten per centum ad valorem."
The collector classified the paper under the following clause on the same page:
"Paper hangings and paper for screens or fire-boards; paper, antiquarian, demy, drawing, elephant, foolscap, imperial letter, and all other paper not otherwise provided for, thirty-five per centum ad valorem."
The plaintiffs thereupon protested that the paper which they had imported, instead of being assessed as it was by the collector under this latter clause at thirty-five per cent ad valorem, should have been assessed under the former clause as "paper ... printing, unsized, used for books and newspapers exclusively," at twenty per cent ad valorem. From the testimony it appears that it was what is generally called "tissue paper," and was mainly if not exclusively used for making letter-press copies of letters or written matter. This is a well-known process, by which, after a letter has been written on ordinary paper, it is placed between the leaves of a book filled with this kind of paper, the pages upon which the copy is desired being usually dampened somewhat for that purpose, after which such book is subject to great pressure by means of a hand or other press. One or more impressions *115 may thus be made of the written matter upon the leaves of this tissue paper.
The judge of the Circuit Court, in speaking of the character of this paper, said to the jury: "I do not think that the words used in the statute have any technical meaning. You must take the statute as you find it and a common sense view of the case, and say whether or not this paper which has been produced here is paper which is used, exclusively for books and newspapers; and whether the law-makers intended, when they used this language, that such paper as has been described to you should come in and pay duty under that clause of the statute which provides for paper used exclusively for books and newspapers."
He also said that if they found that it was not printing paper used exclusively for books and newspapers, and should not come under this clause, then their verdict should be for the defendant. At the request of the attorney for the defendant he also charged the jury that if they found upon the evidence that the phrase "printing paper," as used in the trade, has a technical signification, and if the plaintiffs' importation in this case does not come within that signification, they should find a verdict for the defendant.
The verdict and the judgment were for the defendant.
We are of opinion that the charge of the court was correct, and that the verdict and judgment which followed it are without error. It is very obvious from the face of the statute that "printing paper, unsized, used for books and newspapers exclusively," does not include the kind of paper in question in this case, and it therefore falls within the class of manufactures of other paper not otherwise provided for, so that it was properly chargeable with the duty of thirty-five per centum ad valorem.
An ingenious argument is made by plaintiffs' counsel to show that the process of transferring the writing made upon sheets of the ordinary writing paper used for that purpose, by causing the ink with which it was written to soak or penetrate through one or more thicknesses of the kind of tissue paper which this is said to be, after the same have been properly *116 dampened, is printing within the meaning of the statute, and therefore this paper, being used for that purpose, is "printing paper." We, however, think it is perfectly clear that this process is not printing, and that the use of this kind of paper, which is in controversy here, for that purpose, does not make it "printing paper."
The words of the statute, "paper, sized or glued, suitable only for printing paper," and "printing, unsized, used for books and newspapers, exclusively," evidently have reference to the various kinds of paper which are used for printing by means of type or plates, which make an impression only upon the face of the paper presented to them, and not to these kinds of tissue paper, so characterized on account of their thinness, used for the purpose of transferring writing by the penetration or soaking through of the liquid used therefor, so that the copy is read upon the side of the paper opposite to that presented to the original writing. The words of the statute cannot comprehend this species of tissue paper, which is merely used for the multiplication or copying of letters or other writings. Not being included within the true meaning of these phrases above quoted, it must then belong to that other and larger class of "all other paper not otherwise provided for." This is taxable at the rate of thirty-five per centum ad valorem, the amount which was actually levied and collected in this case.
We think the charge of the Circuit Judge on this subject, in connection with the testimony, was sound, and that it cannot be made much clearer by amplification.
The judgment of the Circuit Court is therefore
Affirmed.


432 U.S. 40 (1965)
UNITED STATES
v.
CALIFORNIA.
No. 5, Orig.
Supreme Court of United States.
Decided June 23, 1947, Decided May 17, 1965.
Order and decree entered October 27, 1947.
Supplemental decree entered January 31, 1966.
Second supplemental decree entered June 13, 1977.
ON JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF A SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECREE.
The joint motion for entry of a second supplemental decree is granted.

SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECREE
For the purpose of identifying with greater particularity parts of the boundary line, as defined by the Supplemental Decree of January 31, 1966, 382 U. S. 448, between the submerged lands of the United States and the submerged lands of the State of California, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that this Court's Supplemental Decree of January 31, 1966, be, and the same is hereby, further supplemented as follows:
1. Closing Lines Across Entrances to Bodies of Inland Waters
a. The inland waters of the following bodies of water are enclosed by straight lines between the mean lower low-water lines at the seaward ends of the jetties located at their mouths:
1. Humboldt Bay
2. Port Hueneme
3. Santa Ana River
4. Agua Hedionda Lagoon
*41 b. The inland waters of San Francisco Bay are those enclosed by a series of straight lines from the south-western head of Point Bonita (37°48′56″N, 122°31′ 44″W); thence to the western edge of an unnamed island immediately to the south (37°48′55″N, 122°31′44.2″W); thence southward to the western edge of a second unnamed island (37°48′53″N, 122°31′44″W); thence southward to the western edge of a third unnamed island (37°46′57″N, 122°30′52″W); thence to a western head of Point Lobos (37°46′53″N, 122°30′49″W). The length of this closing line is 2.18 nautical miles.
c. The inland waters of Bodega-Tomales Bay are those enclosed by a straight line drawn from Bodega Head (38° 17′53.8″N, 123°03′25.3″W); thence to the western edge of an unnamed island northwest of Tomales Point (38° 14′28.4″N, 122°59′41.5″W); thence southward to Tomales Point (38°14′26.5″N, 122°59′39″W).
d. The closing lines delineated in the foregoing paragraph are part of the coastline of California. The foregoing is without prejudice to the right of either party to assert or deny that other closing lines are part of the coastline of California for purposes of establishing the Federal-State boundary line under the Submerged Lands Act, 67 Stat. 29, as amended.
2. Artificial Extension of the Coastline
The mean lower low-water line along each of the following structures is part of the coastline of California for purposes of establishing the Federal-State boundary line under the Submerged Lands Act:
a. The Morro Bay breakwater
b. The Port San Luis breakwater
c. The Santa Barbara breakwater
d. The Ventura Marina breakwater
e. The Channel Islands Harbor breakwater

*42 f. Three rubble groins at Point Mugu
g. The Santa Monica breakwater
h. The Venice Beach groin
i. The Marina del Rey breakwater
j. Three rubble groins along Dockweiler Beach
k. The Redondo Beach breakwater
l. Two harbor jetties at Newport Bay
m. The Dana Point breakwater
n. The Oceanside breakwater
o. Two harbor jetties at entrance to Mission Bay
p. The Zuniga jetty at San Diego (including the southern seaward end of this entire structure)
The foregoing is without prejudice to the right of either party to assert or deny that other artificial structures are part of the coastline of California for purposes of establishing the Federal-State boundary line under the Submerged Lands Act.
3. The Court retains jurisdiction to entertain such further proceedings, enter such orders, and issue such writs as may from time to time be deemed necessary or advisable to give proper force and effect to this decree or to effectuate the rights of the parties in the premises.


459 U.S. 553 (1983)
SOUTH DAKOTA
v.
NEVILLE
No. 81-1453.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued December 8, 1982.
Decided February 22, 1983.
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
*554 Mark V. Meierhenry, Attorney General of South Dakota, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Mark Smith, Assistant Attorney General.
David R. Gienapp argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.[*]
JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.
Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757 (1966), held that a State could force a defendant to submit to a blood-alcohol test without violating the defendant's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. We now address a question left open in Schmerber, supra, at 765, n. 9, and hold that the admission into evidence of a defendant's refusal to submit to such a test likewise does not offend the right against self-incrimination.

I
Two Madison, South Dakota, police officers stopped respondent's car after they saw him fail to stop at a stop sign. The officers asked respondent for his driver's license and asked him to get out of the car. As he left the car, respondent staggered and fell against the car to support himself. *555 The officers smelled alcohol on his breath. Respondent did not have a driver's license, and informed the officers that it was revoked after a previous driving-while-intoxicated conviction. The officers asked respondent to touch his finger to his nose and to walk a straight line. When respondent failed these field sobriety tests, he was placed under arrest and read his Miranda rights.[1] Respondent acknowledged that he understood his rights and agreed to talk without a lawyer present. App. 11. Reading from a printed card, the officers then asked respondent to submit to a blood-alcohol test and warned him that he could lose his license if he refused.[2] Respondent refused to take the test, stating "I'm too drunk, I won't pass the test." The officers again read the request to *556 submit to a test, and then took respondent to the police station, where they read the request to submit a third time. Respondent continued to refuse to take the test, again saying he was too drunk to pass it.[3]
South Dakota law specifically declares that refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test "may be admissible into evidence at the trial." S. D. Comp. Laws Ann. § 32-23-10.1 (Supp. 1982).[4] Nevertheless, respondent sought to suppress all evidence of his refusal to take the blood-alcohol test. The Circuit Court granted the suppression motion for three reasons: the South Dakota statute allowing evidence of refusal violated respondent's federal constitutional rights; the officers failed to advise respondent that the refusal could be used against him at trial; and the refusal was irrelevant to the issues before the court. The State appealed from the entire order. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the suppression of the act of refusal on the grounds that § 32-23-10.1, which allows the introduction of this evidence, violated the federal and state privilege against self-incrimination.[5] 312 N. W. 2d 723 (1981). The court reasoned that *557 the refusal was a communicative act involving respondent's testimonial capacities and that the State compelled this communication by forcing respondent " `to choose between submitting to a perhaps unpleasant examination and producing *558 testimonial evidence against himself,' " id., at 726 (quoting State v. Andrews, 297 Minn. 260, 262, 212 N. W. 2d 863, 864 (1973), cert. denied, 419 U. S. 881 (1974)).[6]
Since other jurisdictions have found no Fifth Amendment violation from the admission of evidence of refusal to submit to blood-alcohol tests,[7] we granted certiorari to resolve the conflict. 456 U. S. 971 (1982).

II
The situation underlying this case  -  that of the drunk driver  -  occurs with tragic frequency on our Nation's highways. The carnage caused by drunk drivers is well documented and needs no detailed recitation here. This Court, although not having the daily contact with the problem that the state courts have, has repeatedly lamented the tragedy. See Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U. S. 432, 439 (1957) ("The increasing slaughter on our highways, most of which should be avoidable, now reaches the astounding figures only heard of on the battlefield"); Tate v. Short, 401 U. S. 395, 401 (1971) (BLACKMUN, J., concurring) (deploring "traffic irresponsibility and the frightful carnage it spews upon our highways"); Perez v. Campbell, 402 U. S. 637, 657, 672 (1971) (BLACKMUN, J., concurring) (footnote omitted) ("The slaughter on the highways of this Nation exceeds the death toll of all our *559 wars"); Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U. S. 1, 17-19 (1979) (recognizing the "compelling interest in highway safety").
As part of its program to deter drinkers from driving, South Dakota has enacted an "implied consent" law. S. D. Comp. Laws Ann. § 32-23-10 (Supp. 1982). This statute declares that any person operating a vehicle in South Dakota is deemed to have consented to a chemical test of the alcoholic content of his blood if arrested for driving while intoxicated. In Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757 (1966), this Court upheld a state-compelled blood test against a claim that it infringed the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.[8] We recognized that a coerced blood test infringed to some degree the "inviolability of the human personality" and the "requirement that the State procure the evidence against an accused `by its own independent labors,' " but noted the privilege has never been given the full scope suggested by the values it helps to protect. Id., at 762. We therefore held that the privilege bars the State only from compelling "communications" or "testimony." Since a blood test was "physical or real" evidence rather than testimonial evidence, we found it unprotected by the Fifth Amendment privilege.
Schmerber, then, clearly allows a State to force a person suspected of driving while intoxicated to submit to a blood-alcohol test.[9] South Dakota, however, has declined to authorize its police officers to administer a blood-alcohol test against the suspect's will. Rather, to avoid violent confrontations, the South Dakota statute permits a suspect to *560 refuse the test, and indeed requires police officers to inform the suspect of his right to refuse. S. D. Comp. Laws Ann. § 32-23-10 (Supp. 1982). This permission is not without a price, however. South Dakota law authorizes the Department of Public Safety, after providing the person who has refused the test an opportunity for a hearing, to revoke for one year both the person's license to drive and any nonresident operating privileges he may possess. § 32-23-11. Such a penalty for refusing to take a blood-alcohol test is unquestionably legitimate, assuming appropriate procedural protections. See Mackey v. Montrym, supra.
South Dakota further discourages the choice of refusal by allowing the refusal to be used against the defendant at trial. S. D. Comp. Laws. Ann. §§ 32-23-10.1 and 19-13-28.1 (Supp. 1982). Schmerber expressly reserved the question of whether evidence of refusal violated the privilege against self-incrimination. 384 U. S., at 765, n. 9. The Court did indicate that general Fifth Amendment principles, rather than the particular holding of Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609 (1965), should control the inquiry. 384 U. S., at 766, n. 9.[10]
Most courts applying general Fifth Amendment principles to the refusal to take a blood test have found no violation of the privilege against self-incrimination. Many courts, following the lead of Justice Traynor's opinion for the California Supreme Court in People v. Sudduth, 65 Cal. 2d 543, 421 P. 2d 401 (1966), cert. denied, 389 U. S. 850 (1967), have reasoned that refusal to submit is a physical act rather than a communication and for this reason is not protected by the *561 privilege.[11] As Justice Traynor explained more fully in the companion case of People v. Ellis, 65 Cal. 2d 529, 421 P. 2d 393 (1966) (refusal to display voice not testimonial), evidence of refusal to take a potentially incriminating test is similar to other circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt, such as escape from custody and suppression of evidence. The court below, relying on Dudley v. State, 548 S. W. 2d 706 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977), and State v. Andrews, 297 Minn. 260, 212 N. W. 2d 863 (1973), cert. denied, 419 U. S. 881 (1974), rejected this view. This minority view emphasizes that the refusal is "a tacit or overt expression and communication of defendant's thoughts," 312 N. W. 2d, at 726, and that the Constitution "simply forbids any compulsory revealing or communication of an accused person's thoughts or mental processes, whether it is by acts, failure to act, words spoken or failure to speak." Dudley, supra, at 708.
While we find considerable force in the analogies to flight and suppression of evidence suggested by Justice Traynor, we decline to rest our decision on this ground. As we recognized in Schmerber, the distinction between real or physical evidence, on the one hand, and communications or testimony, on the other, is not readily drawn in many cases. 384 U. S., at 764.[12] The situations arising from a refusal present a difficult *562 gradation from a person who indicates refusal by complete inaction, to one who nods his head negatively, to one who states "I refuse to take the test," to the respondent here, who stated "I'm too drunk, I won't pass the test." Since no impermissible coercion is involved when the suspect refuses to submit to take the test, regardless of the form of refusal, we prefer to rest our decision on this ground, and draw possible distinctions when necessary for decision in other circumstances.[13]
As we stated in Fisher v. United States, 425 U. S. 391, 397 (1976), "[t]he Court has held repeatedly that the Fifth Amendment is limited to prohibiting the use of `physical or moral compulsion' exerted on the person asserting the privilege." This coercion requirement comes directly from the constitutional language directing that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." U. S. Const., Amdt. 5 (emphasis added). And as Professor Levy concluded in his history of the privilege, "[t]he element of compulsion or involuntariness was always an ingredient of the right and, before the right existed, of protests against incriminating interrogatories." L. Levy, Origins of the Fifth Amendment 328 (1968).
Here, the State did not directly compel respondent to refuse the test, for it gave him the choice of submitting to the test or refusing. Of course, the fact the government gives a defendant or suspect a "choice" does not always resolve the *563 compulsion inquiry. The classic Fifth Amendment violation  -  telling a defendant at trial to testify  -  does not, under an extreme view, compel the defendant to incriminate himself. He could submit to self-accusation, or testify falsely (risking perjury) or decline to testify (risking contempt). But the Court has long recognized that the Fifth Amendment prevents the State from forcing the choice of this "cruel trilemma" on the defendant. See Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n, 378 U. S. 52, 55 (1964). See also New Jersey v. Portash, 440 U. S. 450, 459 (1979) (telling a witness under a grant of legislative immunity to testify or face contempt sanctions is "the essence of coerced testimony"). Similarly, Schmerber cautioned that the Fifth Amendment may bar the use of testimony obtained when the proffered alternative was to submit to a test so painful, dangerous, or severe, or so violative of religious beliefs, that almost inevitably a person would prefer "confession." 384 U. S., at 765, n. 9.[14] Cf. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 458 (1966) (unless compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings is dispelled, no statement is truly a product of free choice).
In contrast to these prohibited choices, the values behind the Fifth Amendment are not hindered when the State offers a suspect the choice of submitting to the blood-alcohol test or having his refusal used against him. The simple blood-alcohol test is so safe, painless, and commonplace, see Schmerber, 384 U. S., at 771, that respondent concedes, as he must, that the State could legitimately compel the suspect, against his will, to accede to the test. Given, then, that the offer of taking a blood-alcohol test is clearly legitimate, the action becomes no less legitimate when the State offers a second option of refusing the test, with the attendant penalties for making that choice. Nor is this a case where the State has subtly coerced respondent into choosing the option it had no right to compel, rather than offering a true *564 choice. To the contrary, the State wants respondent to choose to take the test, for the inference of intoxication arising from a positive blood-alcohol test is far stronger than that arising from a refusal to take the test.
We recognize, of course, that the choice to submit or refuse to take a blood-alcohol test will not be an easy or pleasant one for a suspect to make. But the criminal process often requires suspects and defendants to make difficult choices. See, e. g., Crampton v. Ohio, decided with McGautha v. California, 402 U. S. 183, 213-217 (1971). We hold, therefore, that a refusal to take a blood-alcohol test, after a police officer has lawfully requested it, is not an act coerced by the officer, and thus is not protected by the privilege against self-incrimination.[15]

III
Relying on Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U. S. 610 (1976), respondent also suggests that admission at trial of his refusal violates the Due Process Clause because respondent was not fully warned of the consequences of refusal. Doyle held that the Due Process Clause prohibits a prosecutor from using a defendant's silence after Miranda warnings to impeach his testimony at trial. Just a Term before, in United States v. Hale, 422 U. S. 171 (1975), we had determined under our supervisory power that the federal courts could not use such silence for impeachment because of its dubious probative value. Although *565 Doyle mentioned this rationale in applying the rule to the States, 426 U. S., at 617, the Court relied on the fundamental unfairness of implicitly assuring a suspect that his silence will not be used against him and then using his silence to impeach an explanation subsequently offered at trial. Id., at 618.
Unlike the situation in Doyle, we do not think it fundamentally unfair for South Dakota to use the refusal to take the test as evidence of guilt, even though respondent was not specifically warned that his refusal could be used against him at trial. First, the right to silence underlying the Miranda warnings is one of constitutional dimension, and thus cannot be unduly burdened. See Miranda, supra, at 468, n. 37. Cf. Fletcher v. Weir, 455 U. S. 603 (1982) (postarrest silence without Miranda warnings may be used to impeach trial testimony). Respondent's right to refuse the blood-alcohol test, by contrast, is simply a matter of grace bestowed by the South Dakota Legislature.
Moreover, the Miranda warnings emphasize the dangers of choosing to speak ("whatever you say can and will be used as evidence against you in court"), but give no warning of adverse consequences from choosing to remain silent. This imbalance in the delivery of Miranda warnings, we recognized in Doyle, implicitly assures the suspect that his silence will not be used against him. The warnings challenged here, by contrast, contained no such misleading implicit assurances as to the relative consequences of his choice. The officers explained that, if respondent chose to submit to the test, he had the right to know the results and could choose to take an additional test by a person chosen by him. The officers did not specifically warn respondent that the test results could be used against him at trial.[16] Explaining the consequences of *566 the other option, the officers specifically warned respondent that failure to take the test could lead to loss of driving privileges for one year. It is true the officers did not inform respondent of the further consequence that evidence of refusal could be used against him in court,[17] but we think it unrealistic to say that the warnings given here implicitly assure a suspect that no consequences other than those mentioned will occur. Importantly, the warning that he could lose his driver's license made it clear that refusing the test was not a "safe harbor," free of adverse consequences.
While the State did not actually warn respondent that the test results could be used against him, we hold that such a failure to warn was not the sort of implicit promise to forgo use of evidence that would unfairly "trick" respondent if the evidence were later offered against him at trial. We therefore conclude that the use of evidence of refusal after these warnings comported with the fundamental fairness required by due process.

IV
The judgment of the South Dakota Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE MARSHALL joins, dissenting.
The Court is understandably anxious to do its part in curtailing the "carnage caused by drunk drivers." Ante, at 558. I sympathize with that concern, but it does not justify the rendition of an advisory opinion on a constitutional issue. In *567 this case, the Court has no power to reverse the judgment of the South Dakota Supreme Court, because its decision rests on an adequate and independent state ground. I therefore cannot join the Court's opinion.
The South Dakota Supreme Court framed the question before it on appeal as "whether SDCL 32-23-10.1 is a violation of Neville's federal and state constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. U. S. Const. Amend. V; S. D. Const. art. VI, § 9." 312 N. W. 2d 723, 725 (1981). After analyzing both federal and state cases, the South Dakota Supreme Court concluded:
"We hold that evidence of the accused's refusal to take a blood test violates the federal and state privilege against self-incrimination and therefore SDCL 32-23-10.1 is unconstitutional." Id., at 726.
Thus, the South Dakota Supreme Court unambiguously held that the statute violated the State Constitution. That holding is certainly adequate to support its judgment and is beyond our power to review.
Given the existence of an adequate state ground, it is established beyond dispute that this Court may not take jurisdiction if the state ground is independent.[1] In this case, we lack jurisdiction because the South Dakota Supreme Court has not indicated, explicitly or implicitly, that its construction of Art. VI, § 9, of the South Dakota Constitution was contingent *568 on our agreement with its interpretation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[2] There is no general presumption of federal law, no general presumption of state law, and no specific language in the opinion below to suggest that the South Dakota Court harbored such an opinion.
Unless we have explicit notice that a provision of a State Constitution is intended to be a mere shadow of the comparable provision in the Federal Constitution, it is presumptuous  -  if not paternalistic  -  for this Court to make that assumption on its own. No matter how eloquent and persuasive our analysis of the Federal Constitution may be, we cannot simply presume that the highest court of a sovereign State will modify its interpretation of its own law whenever we interpret comparable federal law differently. Even when a state tribunal misconceives federal law, this Court cannot vacate its judgment merely to give it an unsolicited opportunity to reanalyze its own law.[3] If a state-court judgment *569 is premised on an adequate state ground, that ground must be presumed independent unless the state court suggests otherwise.[4]
Nothing in South Dakota law establishes a presumption that the State Constitution adds no additional protections for South Dakota residents beyond those already provided by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Indeed, the South Dakota Supreme Court has explicitly established a contrary presumption:
"This court is the final authority on interpretation and enforcement of the South Dakota Constitution. We have always assumed the independent nature of our state constitution regardless of any similarity between the language of that document and the federal constitution." State v. Opperman, 247 N. W. 2d 673, 674 (1976).[5]
*570 Thus, both federal and South Dakota law establish the presumption that an adequate state ground is independent. That presumption is reinforced in this case. For the opinion of the South Dakota Supreme Court explicitly noted that the language of the South Dakota Constitution is "more liberal" than the comparable federal language. 312 N. W. 2d, at 726, n.[6] It was willing to rest the judgment on federal as well as state grounds, however, because this Court's opinion in Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, 761-762, n. 6 (1966), had assumed that the Fifth Amendment should be construed as broadly as the more liberal state language. 312 N. W. 2d, at 726, n. It concluded that federal law is "broad enough" to exclude the evidence in this case, and it therefore saw "no need to draw a distinction at this time" between state and federal law. Ibid. (emphasis added). Those words plainly suggest that the State Supreme Court did not understand its holding to be "dependent" on this Court's view of federal law.[7]
*571 Because there exists an independent and adequate state ground for the judgment below, I would dismiss the writ of certiorari.[8]
NOTES
[*]  Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the State of Indiana et al. by Linley E. Pearson, Attorney General of Indiana, and Palmer K. Ward, Deputy Attorney General, by Donald M. Bouton, Acting Attorney General of the Virgin Islands, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Charles A. Graddick of Alabama, Wilson L. Condon, of Alaska, Jim Smith of Florida, Tany S. Hong of Hawaii, Tyrone C. Fahner of Illinois, Robert T. Stephan of Kansas, William J. Guste, Jr., of Louisiana, James E. Tierney of Maine, Warren R. Spannaus of Minnesota, John D. Ashcroft of Missouri, Michael T. Greeley of Montana, Robert Abrams of New York, Rufus L. Edmisten of North Carolina, William J. Brown of Ohio, David Frohnmayer of Oregon, LeRoy S. Zimmerman of Pennsylvania, Daniel R. McLeod of South Carolina, William M. Leech, Jr., of Tennessee, John J. Easton of Vermont, Chauncey H. Browning of West Virginia, Bronson C. La Follette of Wisconsin, and Steven F. Freudenthal of Wyoming; for Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, Inc., by Hartley T. Hansen; and for the Texas District and County Attorneys Association et al. by David Crump.
[1]  The officer read the Miranda warning from a printed card. He read: "You have the right to remain silent. You don't have to talk to me unless you want to do so. If you want to talk to me I must advise you whatever you say can and will be used as evidence against you in court. You have the right to confer with a lawyer, and to have a lawyer present with you while you're being questioned. If you want a lawyer but are unable to pay for one, a lawyer will be appointed to represent you free of any cost to you. Knowing these rights, do you want to talk to me without having a lawyer present? You may stop talking to me at any time. You may also demand a lawyer at any time." App. 8. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 467-473 (1966).
[2]  The card read: "I have arrested you for driving or being in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, a violation of S. D. C. L. 32-23-1. I request that you submit to a chemical test of your blood to determine your blood alcohol concentration. You have the right to refuse to submit to such a test and if you do refuse no test will be given. You have the right to a chemical test by a person of your own choosing at your own expense in addition to the test I have requested. You have the right to know the results of any chemical test. If you refuse the test I have requested, your driver's license and any non-residence driving privilege may be revoked for one year after an opportunity to appear before a hearing officer to determine if your driver's license or non-residence driving privilege shall be revoked. If your driver's license or non-residence driving privileges are revoked by the hearing officer, you have the right to appeal to Circuit Court. Do you understand what I told you? Do you wish to submit to the chemical test I have requested?" App. 8-10.
[3]  Responding to other questions, respondent informed the officers that he had been drinking "close to one case" by himself at home, and that his last drink was "about ten minutes ago." Tr. of Preliminary Hearing 8.
[4]  South Dakota Comp. Laws Ann. § 19-13-28.1 (Supp. 1982) likewise declares that, notwithstanding the general rule in South Dakota that the claim of a privilege is not a proper subject of comment by judge or counsel, evidence of refusal to submit to a chemical analysis of blood, urine, breath, or other bodily substance "is admissible into evidence" at a trial for driving under the influence of alcohol. A person "may not claim privilege against self-incrimination with regard to admission of refusal to submit to chemical analysis." Ibid.
[5]  As JUSTICE STEVENS emphasizes, post, at 567, the South Dakota Supreme Court clearly held that the statute violated the State as well as Federal Constitution. Although this would be an adequate state ground for decision, we do not read the opinion as resting on an independent state ground. Rather, we think the court determined that admission of this evidence violated the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and then concluded without further analysis that the state privilege was violated as well. In reaching its holding, the court first analyzed our decisions in Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757 (1966), and Miranda v. Arizona, supra. The court then described the issue for its review as being "[t]o determine whether the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination applies to refusal evidence," 312 N. W. 2d 723, 725 (1981) (emphasis added), and later asked "whether this testimonial evidence was compelled for purposes of applying the Fifth Amendment standard," id., at 726 (emphasis added). The cases relied on by the court to resolve these issues analyze the federal privilege against self-incrimination.

The analysis of the court below was remarkably similar to that of the state-court opinion reviewed in Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 651-653 (1979). That state-court opinion analyzed various decisions interpreting the Federal Constitution, concluded that the Fourth Amendment violated the police procedure at issue there, and then summarily held that the State Constitution was therefore also infringed. As we characterized their analysis, every police practice found to violate the Fourth Amendment would, without further analysis, be held to be contrary to the State Constitution as well. In such a situation, we concluded, this Court has jurisdiction to review the federal constitutional issue decided below.
JUSTICE STEVENS, while expressing general dissatisfaction with Prouse, attempts to distinguish it by noting that the state court there had said the State and Federal Constitutions are " `substantially similar' and that `a violation of the latter is necessarily a violation of the former.' " Post, at 571, n. 7. But the South Dakota Supreme Court made virtually identical statements. In a footnote, the court recognized the textual difference between the federal and state constitutional privileges against self-incrimination, but noted that this Court in Schmerber had interpreted the Fifth Amendment prohibition "in light of the more liberal definition of `evidence' as used in our state constitution." 312 N. W. 2d, at 726, n. Therefore, the court concluded, "[s]ince the Fifth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution is broad enough to exclude this evidence, there is no need to draw a distinction at this time between S. D. Const. Art. VI, § 9 and the Fifth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution." Ibid. The court could not have stated more clearly that it simply assumed that any violation of the Fifth Amendment privilege also violated, without further analysis, the state privilege. This was precisely the reasoning we found sufficient in Prouse to give us jurisdiction to hear the case and decide the federal constitutional issue.
[6]  The South Dakota Supreme Court also remanded for a determination whether respondent's statement that he was too drunk to pass the test was made after a voluntary waiver of his right to remain silent. As yet, of course, there has been no final judgment in this case. This Court nevertheless has jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1257(3) to review the federal constitutional issue which has been finally determined, because if the State ultimately prevails at trial, the federal issue will be mooted; and if the State loses at trial, governing state law, S. D. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 23A-32-4 and 23A-32-5 (1979), prevents it from again presenting the federal claim for review. See California v. Stewart (decided with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 498, n. 71 (1966)); Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469, 481 (1975).
[7]  See, e. g., cases cited in nn. 11 and 13, infra.
[8]  Schmerber also rejected arguments that the coerced blood test violated the right to due process, the right to counsel, and the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.
[9]  Schmerber did caution that due process concerns could be involved if the police initiated physical violence while administering the test, refused to respect a reasonable request to undergo a different form of testing, or responded to resistance with inappropriate force. 384 U. S., at 760, n. 4.
[10]  Griffin held that a prosecutor's or trial court's comments on a defendant's refusal to take the witness stand impermissibly burdened the defendant's Fifth Amendment right to refuse. Unlike the defendant's situation in Griffin, a person suspected of drunk driving has no constitutional right to refuse to take a blood-alcohol test. The specific rule of Griffin is thus inapplicable.
[11]  See, e. g., Newhouse v. Misterly, 415 F. 2d 514 (CA9 1969); Hill v. State, 366 So. 2d 318, 324-325 (Ala. 1979); Campbell v. Superior Court, 106 Ariz. 542, 479 P. 2d 685 (1971); State v. Haze, 218 Kan. 60, 542 P. 2d 720 (1975) (refusal to give handwriting exemplar); City of Westerville v. Cunningham, 15 Ohio St. 2d 121, 239 N. E. 2d 40 (1968).
[12]  The Court in Schmerber pointed to the lie detector test as an example of evidence that is difficult to characterize as testimonial or real. Even though the test may seek to obtain physical evidence, we reasoned that to compel a person to submit to such testing "is to evoke the spirit and history of the Fifth Amendment." 384 U. S., at 764. See also People v. Ellis, 65 Cal. 2d 529, 537, and n. 9, 421 P. 2d 393, 397, and n. 9 (1966) (analyzing lie detector tests as within the Fifth Amendment privilege). A second example of seemingly physical evidence that nevertheless invokes Fifth Amendment protection was presented in Estelle v. Smith, 451 U. S. 454 (1981). There, we held that the Fifth Amendment privilege protected compelled disclosures during a court-ordered psychiatric examination. We specifically rejected the claim that the psychiatrist was observing the patient's communications simply to infer facts of his mind, rather than to examine the truth of the patient's statements.
[13]  Many courts have found no self-incrimination problem on the ground of no coercion, or on the analytically related ground that the State, if it can compel submission to the test, can qualify the right to refuse the test. See, e. g., Welch v. District Court, 594 F. 2d 903 (CA2 1979); State v. Meints, 189 Neb. 264, 202 N. W. 2d 202 (1972); State v. Gardner, 52 Ore. App. 663, 629 P. 2d 412 (1981); State v. Brean, 136 Vt. 147, 385 A. 2d 1085 (1978).
[14]  Nothing in the record suggests that respondent made or could sustain such a claim in this case.
[15]  In the context of an arrest for driving while intoxicated, a police inquiry of whether the suspect will take a blood-alcohol test is not an interrogation within the meaning of Miranda. As we stated in Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U. S. 291, 301 (1980), police words or actions "normally attendant to arrest and custody" do not constitute interrogation. The police inquiry here is highly regulated by state law, and is presented in virtually the same words to all suspects. It is similar to a police request to submit to fingerprinting or photography. Respondent's choice of refusal thus enjoys no prophylactic Miranda protection outside the basic Fifth Amendment protection. See generally Arenella, Schmerber and the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination: A Reappraisal, 20 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 31, 56-58 (1982).
[16]  Even though the officers did not specifically advise respondent that the test results could be used against him in court, no one would seriously contend that this failure to warn would make the test results inadmissible, had respondent chosen to submit to the test. Cf. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218 (1973) (knowledge of right to refuse not an essential part of proving effective consent to a search).
[17]  Since the State wants the suspect to submit to the test, it is in its interest fully to warn suspects of the consequences of refusal. We are informed that police officers in South Dakota now warn suspects that evidence of their refusal can be used against them in court. Tr. of Oral Arg. 16.
[1]  "[W]e will not review a judgment of a state court that rests on an adequate and independent ground in state law. Nor will we review one until the fact that it does not do so appears of record." Herb v. Pitcairn, 324 U. S. 117, 128 (1945). Accord, Jankovich v. Indiana Toll Road Comm'n, 379 U. S. 487 (1965); Honeyman v. Hanan, 300 U. S. 14, 18-19 (1937); Fox Film Corp. v. Muller, 296 U. S. 207 (1935); Lynch v. New York ex rel. Pierson, 293 U. S. 52 (1934); McCoy v. Shaw, 277 U. S. 302 (1928); Petrie v. Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District, 248 U. S. 154, 157 (1918); Enterprise Irrigation District v. Farmers Mutual Canal Co., 243 U. S. 157, 163-166 (1917); Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U. S. 361 (1893); Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 590 (1875).
[2]  As Justice Harlan wrote for the Court in Mental Hygiene Dept. v. Kirchner, 380 U. S. 194, 198 (1965):

"[W]e would have jurisdiction to review only if the federal ground had been the sole basis for the decision, or the State Constitution was interpreted under what the state court deemed the compulsion of the Federal Constitution" (emphasis in original) (footnote omitted).
[3]  "[O]ur power is to correct wrong judgments, not to revise opinions. We are not permitted to render an advisory opinion, and if the same judgment would be rendered by the state court after we corrected its views of federal laws, our review could amount to nothing more than an advisory opinion." Herb v. Pitcairn, supra, at 126. Accord, Minnick v. California Dept. of Corrections, 452 U. S. 105, 120-123 (1981); Rescue Army v. Municipal Court, 331 U. S. 549, 568-569 (1947); United States v. Hastings, 296 U. S. 188, 193 (1935).

The policy of avoiding advisory opinions on federal constitutional issues is a consistent theme throughout our jurisprudence. Paschall v. Christie-Stewart, Inc., 414 U. S. 100 (1973) (per curiam), is especially instructive. In that case, our independent review of the record turned up a state ground supporting the Supreme Court of Oklahoma's judgment that had not even been mentioned in the state court's opinion. Observing that if the argument proved solid, "any decision by this Court would be advisory and beyond our jurisdiction," we remanded for analysis of the state-law claim. Id., at 102.
Even in cases arising through the federal courts, we have always been alert to opportunities to avoid federal constitutional issues by means of a state-law disposition. E. g., Mills v. Rogers, 457 U. S. 291, 302-306 (1982); City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc., 455 U. S. 283, 294-295 (1982); Siler v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 213 U. S. 175 (1909). See generally Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 528, 546-547, and nn. 12-13 (1974).
[4]  The burden is on the petitioner or appellant to establish our jurisdiction. We have therefore regularly dismissed cases when the state judgment might have rested on an independent and adequate state ground. E. g., Durley v. Mayo, 351 U. S. 277, 285 (1956); Stembridge v. Georgia, 343 U. S. 541, 547 (1952); Lynch v. New York ex rel. Pierson, supra; Johnson v. Risk, 137 U. S. 300 (1890).
[5]  The South Dakota Supreme Court was speaking on remand from this Court. The state court had previously held certain police conduct unconstitutional, relying solely on the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. State v. Opperman, 89 S. D. 25, 228 N. W. 2d 152 (1975). This Court had reversed. South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U. S. 364 (1976). The passage in text is excerpted from the South Dakota Supreme Court's reaffirmation of the rationale of its prior opinion, relying on the State Constitution. In reaching its conclusion, the court noted that the language of the relevant state provision "is almost identical to that found in the Fourth Amendment," 247 N. W. 2d, at 674, and was unmoved by the prosecutor's observation that the defendant had not argued in his first appeal that state and federal law were different, id., at 675.
[6]  After quoting a footnote from our opinion in Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, 761-762, n. 6 (1966), the South Dakota Supreme Court stated:

"This footnote indicates that Schmerber was decided in light of the more liberal definition of `evidence' as used in our state constitution. Since the Fifth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution is broad enough to exclude this evidence, there is no need to draw a distinction at this time between S. D. Const. art. VI, § 9 and the Fifth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution." 312 N. W. 2d, at 726, n.
[7]  In Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 651-653 (1979), we did not so interpret the opinion of the Delaware Supreme Court. Although I must confess that I now have some misgivings about our reaching that conclusion without further clarification, see n. 8, infra, there was far more indication in that case than in this one that the state court's analysis was contingent on the correctness of its understanding of federal law. The opinion there began with a statement that the police stops "violate Federal and State constitutional guarantees," State v. Prouse, 382 A. 2d 1359, 1361 (1978), but then went on to say that the State and Federal Constitutions are "substantially similar" and that "a violation of the latter is necessarily a violation of the former," id., at 1362. The opinion drew to a close with the statement: "We hold, therefore, that a random stop of a motorist [absent reasonable suspicion] is constitutionally impermissible and violative of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution." Id., at 1364.
[8]  In cases where an apparent adequate state ground was arguably not independent, this Court has occasionally vacated the state-court judgment and remanded for clarification of the basis for the decision. E. g., Air Pollution Variance Board v. Western Alfalfa Corp., 416 U. S. 861, 866 (1974); California v. Krivda, 409 U. S. 33 (1972); Mental Hygiene Dept. v. Kirchner, 380 U. S. 194 (1965); Minnesota v. National Tea Co., 309 U. S. 551 (1940); State Tax Comm'n v. Van Cott, 306 U. S. 511 (1939). Cf. Herb v. Pitcairn, 324 U. S. 117 (1945) (case held while parties sought a certificate from the state court clarifying the basis for judgment). The Court should, at the very least, follow that course today. "[I]n cases where the answer is not clear to us, it seems consistent with the respect due the highest courts of states of the Union that they be asked rather than told what they have intended." Id., at 127-128.

Some of us have pointed out that even this practice may be overused, because it "tak[es] from appellants the normal burden of demonstrating that we have jurisdiction and plac[es] it on the Supreme Court of [the State]." Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Jerome, 434 U. S. 241, 244 (1978) (REHNQUIST, J., joined by STEVENS, J., dissenting). See also Department of Motor Vehicles of California v. Rios, 410 U. S. 425, 427-430 (1973) (Douglas, J., joined by BRENNAN, Stewart, and MARSHALL, JJ., dissenting).