The New Judicial Federalism and Criminal Justice

Abstract

Justice Brennan's influential article argues that state courts should interpret their own constitutions to provide greater protections for individual rights than those guaranteed by the federal Constitution. Writing in the context of the Burger Court's narrowing of federal constitutional protections for criminal defendants, Brennan contends that state constitutions are independent sources of rights. The article catalogs instances in which state courts have relied on state constitutional provisions to extend protections beyond the federal floor in areas including search and seizure, self-incrimination, right to counsel, and cruel and unusual punishment.

Key Findings

• State constitutions are independent sources of individual rights, not mere shadows of the federal Constitution
• State courts are the final arbiters of their own constitutional provisions
• The trend toward greater reliance on state constitutions represents a return to the original design of American federalism
• Federal constitutional rights establish a floor, not a ceiling, of individual protections

Related Statutes

• U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights
• Various state constitutional provisions

Related Cases

• Michigan v. Long (1983)
• PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980)