Hard to answer in such generality, but the most plausible claim is that an implausible
state court interpretation of state law violates due process. The old standby is
Brinkerhoff-Faris and some civil rights era cases cited by Chief Justice Rehnquist in
Bush v. Gore, which in part turned on that principle regarding the decisions of the
Florida Supreme Court
28 U.S.C. 2281 used to provide for a 3-judge district court (including one
circuit judge) to hear constitutional matters of statewide effect, but that provision
was repealed in 1976. Three-judge courts are still used in limited circumstances
(e.g., certain apportionment cases). I would guess the question is whether any
provision of federal law bars the procedure...
Tough set of issues, but (based on the opinion itself and not any special
knowledge of Nevada law) the Nevada Supreme Court decision may well fit in the
pantheon of cases subject to the Bush v. Gore/Brinkerhoff-Faris treatment... Jim
Blumstein
-----Original Message-----
From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 6:48 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Very odd development in the Nevada Supreme Court decision
(1) Does anyone have any idea of the specific federal change that's
being made here?
(2) I've never heard of any "en banc hearing with all district
judges" before -- can anyone help me out on this? Thanks,
Eugene
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Jul-14-Mon-2003/news/filing.html
Filing challenges high court ruling
REVIEW-JOURNAL
U.S. District Judge Philip Pro temporarily restrained the action by which
the Nevada Assembly passed a tax bill with less than a two-thirds vote. He
ordered an en banc hearing with all district judges for 9 a.m. Wednesday in
Reno and Las Vegas.
The Assembly voted 26-16 Sunday for a bill that would increase taxes by a
record $788 million over the next two years.
Today, Republican lawmakers, citizens and business groups -- upset with
Thursday's decision by the state Supreme Court rejecting the two-thirds vote
requirement to pass taxes -- filed an action in U.S. District Court seeking
to block the court's ruling.
Assembly Minority Leader Lynn Hettrick, R-Gardnerville, said the federal
action is necessary because the 6-1 Supreme Court ruling allowing only a
simple majority to raise taxes is unconstitutional.
"We don't believe the court's decision that we can ignore the constitution
is legal," he said.
