Where a federal case turns on an unsettled question of state law, the federal court may certify the question to the state’s highest court, which may answer it and return the case.

When it is appropriate. The question is determinative of the case; there is no controlling state precedent; and the answer has significance beyond the parties. A federal court otherwise must predict how the state court would rule, which risks an authoritative but wrong prediction embedding itself.

Procedure. Governed by state statute or rule and by the federal court’s own rules. The certifying order frames the question, states the facts, and usually identifies which party is treated as appellant for briefing.

Discretion at both ends. The federal court may decline to certify and the state court may decline to answer. Frequent certification is discouraged as an abdication of the federal court’s duty to decide.

Strategic considerations. Certification adds a year or more. A party confident that state law favors it may seek certification; one relying on a favorable federal prediction will resist. Because the answer becomes binding state law, certification can also convert a private dispute into a matter attracting amicus participation.

Framing matters enormously. The question as certified constrains the answer, and parties should participate actively in drafting it rather than leaving it to the court.