What does the adequate and independent state grounds doctrine entail for Supreme Court reviews?

The adequate and independent state grounds doctrine is a significant legal principle that operates within the context of Supreme Court reviews of state court decisions. This doctrine asserts that if a state court decision is based on adequate and independent state grounds, the Supreme Court will not review that decision. This means that the court is not concerned with the merits of the federal issues if the state law provides a sufficient basis for the decision.

Choosing the option that explains that a reversal of a state court ruling must change the case outcome aligns with the implications of the doctrine. Specifically, if the Supreme Court were to reverse a state court on federal grounds, it must also affect the ultimate outcome of the case. If the case can be resolved based solely on state law and that ruling does not bring up any federal questions, then the Supreme Court traditionally refrains from intervening.

The other options do not accurately reflect the doctrine's application or significance. The Supreme Court does have limitations on what it reviews, particularly in cases where state decisions rest on solid state law grounds. The requirement for a unanimous decision by the state court is not a component of the doctrine, nor is a mandate that all state decisions require review. Each of these points highlights different legal principles that do not directly relate to the essence of