The court said Nebraska courts are responsible for interpreting the state`s constitutional provisions. 171First Trust Co., 277 N.V. to 771-72. The court noted that the Nebraska Supreme Court`s interpretation of its constitution has a binding effect on the U.S. Supreme Court, just as the U.S. Supreme Court`s interpretation of the Federal Constitution binds the Nebraska Supreme Court. 172 d. to 772 (“The U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court are peers. The decisions of the former on the Federal Constitution and the laws are binding on the latter: the decisions of the latter on the Constitution and the laws of Nebraska are binding for the former. After establishing this legal context, the Tribunal rejected the Blaisdell standard in the interpretation of the breach clause of the state contract. 173See id. 772-78.
The Nebraska Supreme Court decision in First Trust Co. of Lincoln v. Smith is particularly helpful when it comes to how state courts should put their contracting clauses in place. 167277 N.V. to 768-78. In First Trust Co., the court provided a plan for the adoption of a stricter standard contractual clause in the removal of a moratorium law similar to that upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Blaisdell. 168 d. to 768-70. The court found that the Moratorium Act would likely have been authorized by the U.S. Constitution under Blaisdell`s binding precedent, but unlike an earlier case before the Nebraska Supreme Court, the law was also challenged in Nebraska`s own constitution.
169Se id. (affirming that Blaisdell`s status was still going to fail because there was no emergency). In particular, the law was challenged under the contractual breach clause of the Nebraska Constitution, which states: “No law . . . . contractual obligations . . . 170Neb.
Const. Article I, No. 16; See also First Trust Co., 277 N.V. to 764. 230See z.B. Const. Article I, point 10 (prohibition of breaching contractual obligations). The text of the contractual clause simply states that there is “no law infringing the obligation of the contract.” 100U.S. Const. Art. I, 10, C. 1.
The current standard for contractual clauses allows a state to significantly allocate contracts “as long as depreciation is appropriate and necessary.” 101Eric M. Madiar, Public Pension Benefits Under Siege, 27 A.B.A. J. Lab. L. 179, 186 (2012). However, the text contains nothing on the adequacy or necessity of the law that infringes on contractual obligations, both in the federal contractual clause and in similarly worded terms of assignment of state contracts. 102See.B. U.S. Const. Art. I, 10, C.
1; Me. Const. Art. I, No. 10 (No. 2) the obligation to enter into a contract. « ). Nor do the clauses contain the use of a form of word “substantial.” 103See .B. U.S.
Const. Art. I, 10, C. 1; Me. Const. Art. I, No. 10 (No. 2) the obligation to enter into a contract. « ). Therefore, if the courts find a breach of a contractual obligation, the investigation will likely have to go further. In particular, the Court`s stricter standards have focused on the purpose of the breach and its conformity with the original interpretations and understanding of the clause.