11 absent a clear statement to the contrary by the state court. Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1040 (1983). But the opposite presumption applies “[i]n the absence of a clear indication that a state court rested its decision on federal law. . . .” Coleman, 501 U.S. at 739–40. “That presumption grows out of the principle that there must be some affirmative showing that a federal question was presented to the state court and that a decision on such question was necessary to a determination of the cause.” Stephen M. Shapiro, et al., Supreme Court Practice 213 (10th ed. 2013). In cases such as this, “ ‘[w]here the highest court of the state delivers no opinion and it appears that the judgment might have rested upon a nonfederal ground, this Court will not take jurisdiction to review that judgment.’ ” Durley v. Mayo, 351 U.S. 277, 281 (1956) (quoting Stembridge v. Georgia, 343 U.S. 541, 547 (1952)). Petitioners argue that it is never permissible for a state court to rule on a fee motion brought under 42 U.S.C. 1988 without also issuing an opinion, but they are mistaken. Pet. 16–17. While Petitioners may find it preferable for state courts to issue opinions each time they rule on a motion, this Court has recognized that “federal courts have no authority to impose mandatory opinion-writing standards on state courts. . . .” Johnson v. Williams, 568 U.S. 289, 300 (2013). This is especially true where a state court summarily denies a motion due to a party’s procedural default.