Procedural Rules v Federal Law?
<p>This question is inspired by <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/a/90483/36096">@ohwilleke response</a> to <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/90478/conflict-between-third-circuit-and-nj-appellate-division-regarding-stay-pending">my previous question</a>.</p>
<p>In his response, <em>ohwilleke</em> highlighted the following point:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Isn't the the Appellate Division in NJ required to uphold the ruling
of the Third Circuit in such matters?</p>
<p>It is not.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>There can be no conflict on <strong>procedural issues</strong> between the Third
Circuit, which is interpreting federal rules of civil and appellate
procedure, and a ruling of a New Jersey court which is interpreting
<strong>state rules</strong> of civil and appellate procedure.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>What's the difference between state laws that are subject to federal law &amp; &quot;procedural&quot; issues (&quot;state rules of civil procedure&quot;) that apparently are not? At the heart of <em>Coinbase v. Bielski</em> is whether the FAA intended that an appeal divests the district court's jurisdiction of the case. It is not a question of federal &quot;procedure&quot;.</p>
<p>If the FAA so intended, what legal right does a state court have to devise a &quot;procedural&quot; rule that is in direct conflict with federal law? A rule that is in violation of federal law is no better than a state law that violates federal law.</p>
<p>Assuming the intent of the FAA was to divest jurisdiction when an appeal is filed, on what basis can a state create a &quot;rule&quot; that gives it jurisdiction? If the state were to create a law that is inconsistent with federal law it would be struck down as illegal. Why does that change because it is a state rule?</p>
<p>I might be missing something basic but something doesn't sound right.</p>
<p>Can someone explain the difference in approach between a rule and a law that is in direct conflict with federal law?</p>

<p>The <em>interpretation</em> of state rules of civil procedure is a matter purely for state courts.</p>
<p><em>Whether</em> a state procedural rule (or even substantive approaches to jurisdiction) violates federal law, including the U.S. Constitution, is a question of federal law, but state courts are still competent to answer such questions that arise in the process of state litigation, subject only to precedent from the Supreme Court of the United States.</p>
<p>I may be starting to just repeat things now, but <em>even if</em> the legal issue you're interested in (the extent to which trial courts are divested of jurisdiction during non-frivilous interlocutory appeals in matters controlled by the FAA) is substantive or jurisdictional rather than procedural, <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/87110/in-the-united-states-must-state-courts-follow-rulings-by-federal-courts-of-appe">Federal circuits do not bind state courts</a>.</p>
<p>However, the Supreme Court of the United States <em>can</em> provide binding prcedent on federal law that state courts must apply. I could see the reasons in <em>Coinbase</em> being written broadly enough to apply to both state and federal proceedings.</p>

united-states civil-procedure us-federal-government federal-courts