Herndon v. Georgia

Supreme Court of the United States · 1935 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsSupreme Court jurisdictionadequate and independent state groundspreservation of federal questionsfederal questiontimely raisingpetition for rehearingstate procedural default

Facts

Appellant was convicted in Georgia of attempting to incite insurrection by endeavoring to induce others to join in combined resistance to state authority to be accomplished by acts of violence under § 56 of the Georgia Penal Code. In the trial court, he made a preliminary attack on the indictment on the ground, among others, that the statute violated the Constitution of the United States, but that attack was overruled. The adverse ruling was not preserved by exceptions pendente lite or assigned as error in due time as Georgia practice required. After the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed, appellant sought rehearing and then pressed his federal constitutional objection there.

Issue

Whether the Supreme Court of the United States had jurisdiction to review appellant's federal constitutional challenge to the Georgia statute when the federal question was not properly preserved and passed upon in the state courts before judgment. More specifically, did appellant fall within the exception allowing a federal question to be raised for the first time on rehearing because the state supreme court had adopted an unanticipated construction of the statute?

Rule

The Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review a state judgment unless the federal question was seasonably raised in the state court and passed upon there. A federal question first raised after judgment in a petition for rehearing comes too late unless the state court actually entertains and decides it; the exception is when the state court's unanticipated ruling first creates the federal issue and rehearing is the first realistic opportunity to raise it.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Arizona, Lena Ortiz was convicted under a state public-order statute. Before trial, her lawyer argued generally that the statute violated the U.S. Constitution, but after the trial judge rejected the motion, counsel failed to take the state-law steps required to preserve that ruling for appeal, and the Arizona Supreme Court refused to review it on that ground.

If Lena seeks review in the U.S. Supreme Court on the ground that the statute violates the Fourteenth Amendment, what is the best answer?

Explanation. The governing rule is that a federal question must be seasonably raised in the state courts and passed upon there before the U.S. Supreme Court may review. A general constitutional objection is not enough when, under settled state practice, the issue was not preserved for appellate review and the state high court declined to consider it. That state-law determination is conclusive for jurisdictional purposes.