Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
The Law of American State Constitutions$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Robert F. Williams

Print publication date: 2009

Print ISBN-13: 9780195343083

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: February 2010

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195343083.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2019. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. date: 20 August 2019

Lockstepping State Constitutional Rights with Federal Constitutional Law

Lockstepping State Constitutional Rights with Federal Constitutional Law

Chapter:
(p.193) 7 LOCKSTEPPING STATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WITH FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Source:
The Law of American State Constitutions
Author(s):

Robert F. Williams

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195343083.003.0007

This chapter discusses the practice — adopted by a number of state courts — of stating that state constitutional rights provisions will be interpreted identically to, or in “lockstep” with, similar or identical federal constitutional rights provision. State courts do this in a variety of ways, ranging from cases where they do not seem to acknowledge the possible difference between state and federal rights protections; to case-by-case adoption of federal constitutional interpretations; to “prospective lockstepping” where they announce that in the future the state and federal rights provisions will be interpreted identically or according to some other similar formulation. The chapter gives examples of these different approaches, as well as variations on them. It includes a specific focus on the wide range of state constitutional equality provisions, which, according to many state courts, are to be interpreted the same way as the federal Equal Protection Clause. These various forms of prospective lockstepping are criticized, on the grounds that they cannot actually represent “holdings” and are therefore not binding on future courts.

Keywords:   equality provisions, equal protection, lockstepping, prospective lockstepping, Equal Protection Clause, holdings, rights provisions

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .