Fox Film Corp. v. Muller
296 U.S. 207, 56 S. Ct. 183 (1935)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The U.S. Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review a state court judgment that rests on a non-federal ground that is both independent of any federal question and adequate to support the judgment.
Facts:
- Fox Film Corporation licensed moving-picture films to Muller under two contracts.
- Each contract contained a mandatory arbitration clause.
- This arbitration clause was identical to one previously held invalid under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in a separate federal case where Fox Film was a defendant.
- Muller breached the contracts, and Fox Film sued him to recover damages.
Procedural Posture:
- Fox Film Corporation sued Muller in a Minnesota state court of first instance for breach of contract.
- The trial court dismissed the action, holding the contracts violated the Sherman Anti-trust Act.
- Fox Film Corporation (appellant) appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
- The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, but then dismissed the writ as improvidently granted because the state court judgment was not yet final.
- The case was remanded to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which made the judgment final and again affirmed its prior decision.
- Fox Film Corporation (petitioner) again sought and was granted a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the U.S. Supreme Court have jurisdiction to review a state court's judgment when that judgment is supported by a determination on a state law contract issue (severability) that is independent of and adequate to support the final outcome, even if a federal question was also presented?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Sutherland
No. The Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review a state court judgment if it rests on an adequate and independent non-federal ground. The Minnesota Supreme Court's decision was based on the non-severability of the illegal arbitration clause from the rest of the contract. The question of whether contract provisions are severable is a matter of general state contract law, not federal law. This state-law ground is adequate on its own to support the judgment against Fox Film, regardless of any federal anti-trust questions. Because the non-federal ground is independent of the federal one and is sufficient to sustain the judgment, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The state court's decision on the non-federal question of severability effectively disposed of the case before the federal question needed to be reached.
Analysis:
This case is a classic articulation of the 'adequate and independent state grounds' doctrine, a fundamental principle of federalism and judicial restraint that limits the U.S. Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction over state court decisions. It clarifies that even when a federal issue is present, the Supreme Court will not intervene if the state court's decision can stand entirely on a separate state law basis. This doctrine prevents the Supreme Court from issuing advisory opinions on federal law that would have no effect on the ultimate outcome of the case and respects the autonomy of state courts in interpreting their own laws. It establishes that a state court's resolution of a case on a dispositive state law issue forecloses federal review.
Unlock the full brief for Fox Film Corp. v. Muller