Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-637_10n2.pdf
Page Number: 29

Cite as:  595 U. S. ____ (2022) 

7 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

has permitted this Court to review the judgments of state 
courts only when petitioners properly present their federal 
claims to those courts below.  See Gates, 462 U. S., at 218. 
This Court’s earliest cases held that the absence of a federal 
claim  in  the  state  court  defeats  this  Court’s  jurisdiction. 
See,  e.g.,  Owings  v.  Norwood’s  Lessee,  5  Cranch  344,  347 
(1809).  Justice Story explained: “[T]o give this court appel-
late jurisdiction two things should have occurred and be ap-
parent  in  the  record:  first,  that  some  one  of  the  [federal]
questions  . . .  did  arise  in  the  court  below;  and  secondly,
that  a  decision  was  actually  made  thereon  by  the  same
court.”  Crowell v. Randell, 10 Pet. 368, 392 (1836).2  That 
conclusion  was  unremarkable  given  that  the  proper- 
presentation  requirement  has  always  appeared  in  this 
Court’s only statutory grant of jurisdiction to review state-
court decisions. 

For nearly 200 years, this Court adhered to the proper-
presentation  requirement  as  a  jurisdictional  rule.  The 
Court  routinely  dismissed  cases  for  lack  of  jurisdiction
when  the  petitioner  failed  to  properly  present  his  federal 
claim to the state court.  See, e.g., Oxley Stave Co. v. Butler 
County,  166  U. S.  648,  660  (1897);  Cincinnati,  N.  O.  & 
T. P. R. Co. v. Slade, 216 U. S. 78, 83–84 (1910); Cardinale 
v. Louisiana, 394 U. S. 437, 439 (1969); see also Howell, 543 
U. S., at 445 (noting “the long line of cases clearly stating 
that the presentation requirement is jurisdictional”).  Even 
a  century  ago,  it  was  “well  settled”  that  this  Court  was 
“without  jurisdiction  to  review  the  judgment  of  a  State 
court  . . .  by  reason  of  a  federal  question  which  was  not 
raised below or called to the attention of or decided by the 

—————— 

2 Our later cases have stated this test in the disjunctive.  See Illinois v. 
Gates, 462 U. S. 213, 218, n. 1 (1983).  Because neither precondition is
satisfied—Hemphill did not raise his Sixth Amendment claim below, nor
did the New York Court of Appeals address any such claim—I express no 
view on whether a federal claim must be both pressed and passed upon 
in the state court.