If a state court decision conflicts with federal law, what must the state court follow?

In situations where a state court decision conflicts with federal law, it is essential for the state court to follow federal law. This principle is grounded in the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, which establishes that federal law takes precedence over state laws whenever there is a direct conflict. The Supremacy Clause ensures that federal laws are the highest form of law in the country, so any conflicting state legislation or judicial decision must yield to federal mandates.

This scenario emphasizes the hierarchical structure of law in the United States, where federal law generally supersedes state law. By adhering to federal law in cases of conflict, state courts maintain consistency and uniformity within the legal system, allowing citizens to have a clear understanding of their rights and obligations under the law.

In contrast, state law, local ordinances, and international law do not have the same precedence as federal law in this context. While state courts are obligated to interpret and apply state laws, they cannot do so in a manner that contradicts federal law. Therefore, the state court is bound by federal law when conflicts arise.