Let's make the Alabama case a more appropriate hypothetical. Suppose that the Alabama Supreme Court had ruled (rather than Chief Justice Moore simply asserting) that the monument was not a violation of the Establishment Clause.
If a state court acts in an administrative capacity, as is the situation in Judge Moore's case (acting on behalf of the court in his capacity as chief justice), then a state court does not stand in any different situation from an executive officer. That is, it can be a defendant in a case as to whom the order issues. If a state court acts in a judicial capacity, then legal practice, if not constitutional commandment, has been for federal courts to review those decisions according to either appellate or collateral attacks. Habeas corpus is a traditional way in which a federal district court can "reverse" a state supreme court decision, by determining that a prisoner was unconstitutionally convicted even though the state supreme court upheld the constitutionality of the conviction. [The statutory availability of habeas relief depending upon what the state court did or did not consider has varied over the years and may not allow for habeas relief today if the state court fully considered the constitutional claim, but that is a product of statute, I believe, not the constitution.]
Bill Funk
