Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1271_3f14.pdf
Page Number: 32.0

Cite as:  600 U. S. ____ (2023) 

27 

Opinion of the Court 

of each State, a deliberate choice that this Court must re-
spect.  As in other areas where the exercise of federal au-
thority or the vindication of federal rights implicates ques-
tions of state law, we have an obligation to ensure that state 
court interpretations of that law do not evade federal law. 
State law, for example, “is one important source” for de-
fining property rights.  Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U. S. 
___, ___ (2023) (slip op., at 5); see also  Board of Regents of 
State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564, 577 (1972) (property 
rights “are created and their dimensions are defined by ex-
isting rules or understandings that stem from an independ-
ent source such as state law”).  At the same time, the Fed-
eral Constitution provides that “private property” shall not 
“be taken for public use, without just compensation.”  Amdt. 
5.  As a result, States “may not sidestep the Takings Clause 
by  disavowing  traditional  property  interests.”    Phillips  v. 
Washington  Legal  Foundation,  524  U. S.  156,  164  (1998); 
see also Webb’s Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith, 449 
U. S. 155, 164 (1980) (holding that States may not, “by ipse 
dixit,  . . .  transform  private  property  into  public  property
without compensation”). 

A similar principle applies with respect to the Contracts
Clause, which provides that “[n]o state shall . . . pass any 
. . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.”  Art. I, §10, 
cl.  1.  In  that  context  “we  accord  respectful  consideration
and great weight to the views of the State’s highest court.” 
Indiana ex rel. Anderson v. Brand, 303 U. S. 95, 100 (1938). 
Still, “in order that the constitutional mandate may not be-
come  a  dead  letter,  we  are  bound  to  decide  for  ourselves 
whether a contract was made.”  Ibid.; see also General Mo-
tors Corp. v. Romein, 503 U. S. 181, 187 (1992).

Cases  raising  the  question  whether  adequate  and  inde-
pendent grounds exist to support a state court judgment in-
volve a similar inquiry.  We have in those cases considered 
whether a state court opinion below adopted novel reason-
ing  to  stifle  the  “vindication  in  state  courts  of  . . .  federal