Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/598us1r3_j4ek.pdf
Page Number: 18

Cite as:  598 U. S. 17 (2023) 

33 

Barrett, J., dissenting 

636  (1875).  We  thus  cannot  disturb  state-court  rulings  on 
state-law  questions  that  are  independent  of  federal  law. 
Second, Article III empowers federal courts to render judg-
ments,  not  advisory  opinions.  Hayburn's  Case,  2  Dall.  409 
(1792).  So if an independent state ground of decision is ade-
quate to sustain the judgment, we lack jurisdiction over the 
entire  dispute.  Anything  we  said  about  alternative  federal 
grounds  would not  affect the  ultimate resolution  of the  case 
and would therefore be advisory.  Herb v. Pitcairn, 324 U. S. 
117, 126 (1945). 

The  Court  holds  that  the  Arizona  Supreme  Court's  appli-
cation of Rule 32.1(g) is inadequate to support the judgment 
below.  That assertion is jarring, because the bar for fnding 
inadequacy  is  extraordinarily  high.  When,  as  here,  the  ar-
gument  is  based  on  the  state  court's  inconsistent  or  novel 
application  of  its  law,  the  bar  is  met  only  by  a  decision  so 
blatantly  disingenuous  that  it  reveals  hostility  to  federal 
rights  or  those  asserting  them.  See  Walker  v.  Martin,  562 
U. S. 307, 321 (2011).  Given the respect we owe state courts, 
that  is  not  a  conclusion  we  should  be  quick  to  draw—and 
ordinarily, we are not quick to draw it. 

NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson illustrates how un-
principled  a  state-court  decision  must  be  before  we  treat  it 
as  inadequate.  357  U. S.  449  (1958).  There,  the  NAACP 
asked the Alabama Supreme Court to vacate a civil contempt 
order as  unconstitutional.  That court  denied review  on the 
ground  that  the  NAACP  had  improperly  pursued  a  writ  of 
certiorari,  when  it  should  have  sought  a  writ  of  mandamus. 
Id.,  at  454–455.  We  held  this  procedural  ruling  inadequate 
because  it  was  irreconcilable  with  the  Alabama  Supreme 
Court's “past  unambiguous holdings.”  Id.,  at 456.  Though 
a  multitude  of  that  court's  own  precedents  contradicted  its 
ruling,  one  in  particular  stood  out:  The  court  had  evaluated 
similar  constitutional  claims  brought  by  a  petitioner  in  ca-
hoots  with  the  Ku  Klux  Klan,  even  though  he  had  also  pur-
sued  a  writ  of  certiorari.  Id.,  at  456–457.  The  subtext  of 

Page Proof Pending Publication