When should federal courts certify state law issues to state supreme courts and what standards should guide their discretion?

Last Term, until a sett lement on the eve of conference, this Court appeared poised to grant certi orari in Premium Nutrition v. Montera , No. 24 -999. The petition there asked the Court to clarify, for the first time since Lehman Brothers v. Schein , 416 U.S. 386 (1974), the standards fo r certifying issues of state law to state high courts. This petition presents another opportunity and a sound vehicle to address this vexing problem, framed as two questions for review : 1. When a federal court considers whether to certify a state law issue to a state high court, what factors, including federalism interests, bear on the certification decision? 1 2. When a party seeks certification, should federal courts explain their rulings? 1 A “state law issue” refers, without need for repetition, to substan tive state law binding in diversity actions under Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins , 304 U.S. 64 (1938), and substantive state law implicated under supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ii LIST OF PROCEEDINGS U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit No. 23 -3124, 23 -3243 Cheri Poe, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff Appellant v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company Defendant Appellee Final Opinion : March 4, 2025 Rehearing Denial : May 6, 2025 _ U.S. District Court for the Central District of California No. 8 :21-cv-02065 -SPG -E Cheri Poe, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Defendant Final Judgment : October 23, 2023