Court Opinion

ID: 9646196
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 12:52:09.373224+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:35.372831
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Bell:
I join in the majority Opinion. However, I wish to add my conviction that a lower Federal Court Judge or Court should not have the power to nullify and, in practical effect, overrule a decision of the highest appellate Court of any State, in any case where an appeal by certiorari or otherwise may be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States by a defendant or by a person aggrieved.*
Commencing in 1952 and every year thereafter, the Chief Justices (or Chief Judges) of our 48 States (now 50), at their annual Conference have by resolution expressed their conviction that a decision of the highest *458Court of the State should not be reviewed or changed or nullified by any Court other than the Supreme Court of the United States, and in particular that writs of habeas corpus should not be granted by a Federal District Judge or Court where the questions involved have been or may be decided by the highest Court of a State. The deplorable results of this conflict and the resulting impairment of public confidence in Courts and in the administration of Justice, are strikingly apparent from the recent cases of State v. La Pierre, 39 N. J. 156 (1963); and United States ex rel. Russo v. State of New Jersey, 351 F. 2d 429 (3d Cir. 1965).
It is indisputable that respect for Law and for all-Courts would be greatly enhanced if a Federal Judge who (or a Federal Court which) believes he (or it) has such absolute and complete overruling power, would refrain, under the Doctrine of Comity, from exercising it in the absence of very exceptional and controlling circumstances.

 With a few exceptions which are not here relevant.