Publication Date
8-30-2026
Abstract
Jurists nationwide are engaged in robust conversations about state constitutionalism and the degree to which their state constitutions are more protective of individual rights than is the United States Constitution. The Rhode Island Supreme Court, like several state supreme courts, largely adheres to the minimum standards of protection that the United States Supreme Court establishes under the federal constitution when interpreting analogous provisions under the state constitution; that is, it follows a lockstep approach with the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of individual rights guaranteed by the federal constitution that are also protected under the Rhode Island Constitution.
Proponents of state constitutionalism have long criticized the lockstep approach. This Essay suggests, however, that adherence to the lockstep approach has often been justified as a form of judicial restraint. Nevertheless, at a moment of relatively low public confidence in courts and retrenchment in the recognition of federal constitutional rights, continued adherence to the lockstep approach requires reconsideration by jurists and practitioners alike.
Recommended Citation
Melissa A. Long and Geoffrey H. Cole,
New Judicial Federalism at the Crossroads: Observations of State Constitutionalism in Rhode Island,
121
Nw. U. L. Rev.
151
(2026).
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/nulr/vol121/iss1/6