Whether a state court's refusal to adjudicate a federal claim under federal law, while entertaining similar state law claims, violates the Supremacy Clause

No question identified. : 1. Like any other state or federal court, both state courts of record for this case (specifically, the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County and the Arizona Court of Appeals), are bound by this Court’s interpretations of federal law.” See James v. City of Boise, , . 577 US. ___ (2016); Also see, DiRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, 577 US. ; ; ___(2015)(The Court’s interpretation of a federal law is an : “authoritative interpretation of that Act,” requiring the “judges of every State” to “follow it.”) However, given that in the making of the ruling that concluded the respective state court proceedings to Petitioner’s case, the respective presiding state court judge(s) did not follow the “authoritative interpretations” of this Court, but rather instead, acted in contravention of them, therefore, are those rulings not rendered null and void by the long-held holding of this Court which reads: “Courts are constituted by authority and cannot go beyond the power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities.” Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 41 S.Ct. (1920). 2. Given that a state court violates the Supremacy Clause when it refuses to hear a category of federal claims when that court entertains state law actions ofa similar nature. See, Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990), does the fact that while Petitioner established in the formal record for the case, no less than twenty-seven (27) uncontested instances in which he clearly indicated that his case was brought forth under “9 U.S.C. § 4” and is primarily supported by . federal cases, and twice reminded the state court of appeals of its policy for having federal law govern its decision-making in cases brought forth under such conditions, the state court of appeals refused to adjudicate the case under federal governing law, but did so under state governing law, instead, not give rise to a violation of the Supremacy Clause by the Arizona Court of Appeals, thus , ' rendering its decision to affirm the state superior court’s ruling to dismiss Petitioner’s case, as both null and void? 2 OPINIONS BELOW. . JURISDICTION. .cecs