Citations (1)


Footnotes (255)



Against Certification

Justin R. Long

University of Connecticut School of Law

August 10, 2009

George Washington Law Review, Forthcoming

Certification is the process whereby federal courts, confronted by an open question of state law in federal litigation, ask the relevant state high court to decide the state law question. If the state high court chooses to answer, its statement of state law stands as the definitive declaration of the law on the disputed point. The case then returns to the certifying federal court, which resolves any remaining issues, including federal questions, and then issues a mandate. Although a wide range of academic commentators and jurists support certification as an example of respect for state autonomy, this Article shows that in both practice and theory certification does not reflect real comity. Rather, certification is an example of 'dual federalism,' the view that state and federal law ought to be isolated into separate spheres of jurisprudence. For federal courts to show genuine respect for state law, they should stop treating it as foreign and decide open state law questions without certification.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 51

Keywords: certification, federalism, comity, Erie, passive virtues

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: August 22, 2009  

Suggested Citation

Long, Justin R., Against Certification (August 10, 2009). George Washington Law Review, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1458330

Contact Information

Justin R. Long (Contact Author)
University of Connecticut School of Law ( email )
65 Elizabeth Street
Hartford, CT 06105
United States
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 497
Downloads: 84
Download Rank: 237,014
Citations:  1
Footnotes:  255