110 Iowa L. Rev. 1013 (2025)
Abstract
By issuing its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, the U.S. Supreme Court changed the operative meaning of federal constitutional law: On June 23, 2023, the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause protected the right to an abortion; the next day, it did not. But is it possible that Dobbs also changed the meaning of state constitutional law? Curiously, the answer in some circumstances may be yes. That is because many state courts have incorporated U.S. Supreme Court interpretations of federal constitutional provisions, like the Due Process Clause, into the meaning of analogous state constitutional provisions, in what is often referred to as the “lockstep” method of state constitutional interpretation.
State constitutional law scholars have debated for decades whether states should follow the lockstep approach, but little attention has been given to the question of what happens to state law after a state court decides to lockstep and then the relevant federal law changes. This issue has particular importance today as legal scholars and advocates seeking to safeguard rights are increasingly turning to state courts, where they may confront prior lockstep decisions.
This Article offers the first comprehensive review of how state courts interpret the precedential effect of prior lockstep decisions, including whether they view them as having dynamically incorporated federal law (meaning they intended to incorporate future changes to the law as well), or as having only statically incorporated federal law (leaving room to deviate in the event of federal changes). The Article then considers the interplay between adherence to prior lockstep practices and principles of stare decisis and the rule of law.