Certification of State-Law Questions by Federal Courts

In Lindenberg v. Jackson National Life Ins. Co., 912 F.3d 348 (2018), the Sixth Circuit declared unconstitutional Tennessee’s law capping punitive damages based on the Tennessee constitution. But in the wake of Lindenberg, Tennessee state courts continue to reduce punitive damage awards in reliance on the statutory cap because the Tennessee Supreme Court has not directly addressed the law’s constitutionality. And in a case on a different statutory damages cap, the Tennessee Supreme Court indicated it likely would have disagreed with the Sixth Circuit. McClay v. Airport Mgmt Svcs, 596 S.W.3d 686, 693 n.6 (Tenn. 2020)

Federal court certification of state law questions to state high courts is a thorny issue with competing concerns. All states but North Carolina permit certification, but the federal courts control which questions presented in the case it certifies for resolution. State courts are free to decline to answer the questions certified and to do so after a period of months, as happened in Lindenberg. Some experts point out that even when the state court chooses to answer the questions certified, the process can be time consuming and inefficient.

Our panel will explore the issues of federalism, efficiency, and prudence presented when considering the question certification process between federal and state courts.

Featuring:

• Hon. Rachel Wainer Apter, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of New Jersey
• Hon. Benjamin Beaton, United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
• Hon. Sarah Keeton Campbell, Justice, Supreme Court of Tennessee
• Moderator: Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One

---

To register, click the link above.

*******

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.