Jeffrey S. Sutton, drawing on his experience as a federal appellate judge, demonstrates through four compelling stories why state constitutional law deserves more attention from lawyers, judges, and citizens. Each chapter examines how state courts have addressed constitutional questions differently from federal courts: school funding equity, criminal defendants' rights, privacy protections, and free speech. Sutton shows that state courts often moved first on issues later taken up by federal courts, sometimes going further in protecting rights and sometimes reaching different conclusions based on different constitutional texts and traditions. The book argues that this variation is a feature rather than a bug of American federalism, allowing different jurisdictions to experiment with different approaches and providing alternative forums when federal protection proves inadequate. Sutton challenges the assumption that national uniformity should be the goal of constitutional law, suggesting instead that fifty-one constitutional systems provide more opportunities for protecting liberty than one alone. Writing as a sitting federal judge who serves on a court that frequently addresses federal constitutional questions, Sutton brings unusual authority to his argument that state constitutional law has been neglected. Accessible to general readers while offering sophisticated legal analysis, this book will change how readers think about federalism, judicial review, and the protection of individual rights.