This question is inspired by @ohwilleke response to my previous question.
In his response, ohwilleke highlighted the following point:
Isn't the the Appellate Division in NJ required to uphold the ruling of the Third Circuit in such matters?
It is not.
There can be no conflict on procedural issues between the Third Circuit, which is interpreting federal rules of civil and appellate procedure, and a ruling of a New Jersey court which is interpreting state rules of civil and appellate procedure.
What's the difference between state laws that are subject to federal law & "procedural" issues ("state rules of civil procedure") that apparently are not? At the heart of Coinbase v. Bielski is whether the FAA intended that an appeal divests the district court's jurisdiction of the case. It is not a question of federal "procedure".
If the FAA so intended, what legal right does a state court have to devise a "procedural" rule that is in direct conflict with federal law? A rule that is in violation of federal law is no better than a state law that violates federal law.
Assuming the intent of the FAA was to divest jurisdiction when an appeal is filed, on what basis can a state create a "rule" that gives it jurisdiction? If the state were to create a law that is inconsistent with federal law it would be struck down as illegal. Why does that change because it is a state rule?
I might be missing something basic but something doesn't sound right.
Can someone explain the difference in approach between a rule and a law that is in direct conflict with federal law?