Constitutional avoidance

Last updated

Constitutional avoidance is a legal doctrine in United States constitutional law that dictates that United States federal courts should refuse to rule on a constitutional issue if the case can be resolved without involving constitutionality. When a federal court is faced with a choice of ruling on a statutory, regulatory, or constitutional basis, the Supreme Court of the United States has instructed the lower court to decide the federal constitutional issue only as a last resort: "The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of." Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority , 297 U.S. 288, 347 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring).

Contents

The avoidance doctrine flows from the canon of judicial restraint and is intertwined with the debate over the proper scope of federal judicial review and the allocation of power among the three branches of the federal government and the states. It is also premised on the "delicacy" and the "finality" of judicial review of legislation for constitutionality, concerns regarding the credibility of the federal courts, and the "paramount importance of constitutional adjudication in our system." [1] Those elements demonstrate a significant overlap between the avoidance doctrine and other jurisdictional or justiciability barriers. The avoidance doctrine reflects such other justiciability doctrines as standing and ripeness, and permeates jurisdictional doctrines like Pullman abstention and the adequate and independent state ground doctrine.

History

Justice Louis D. Brandeis Brandeisl.jpg
Justice Louis D. Brandeis

The avoidance of unnecessary constitutional decisions has been urged as early as 1833 by Chief Justice of the United States John Marshall in Ex parte Randolph, 20 F. Cas. 242, 254 (C.C.D. Va. 1833) (No. 11,558).

Although Justice Louis Brandeis's concurring opinion in Ashwander is the primary case for the modern formulation of the avoidance doctrine, Marshall had cautioned that no questions of "greater delicacy" may be presented to the federal judiciary than those involving a constitutional challenge to a legislative act. [2] He instructed that if such questions "become indispensably necessary to the case", they must be decided, but "if the case may be determined on other points, a just respect for the legislature requires, that the obligation of its laws should not be unnecessarily and wantonly assailed." In Ex parte Randolph, Marshall was riding circuit when he considered a challenge to a congressional act that provided that Treasury agents could issue warrants for military officers charged with disbursing public funds who failed to pay and to settle their accounts at the United States Department of the Treasury. The court concluded that the terms of the act did not apply to an officer temporarily acting as the ship's purser because of the death of the regularly-commissioned purser and granted his petition for habeas corpus. [3]

Justice Brandeis's concurring opinion in Ashwander provides the most significant formulation of the avoidance doctrine, but his formulation had no effect on the outcome of the case because the Justice concurred in the plurality opinion, which considered and decided the properly-presented constitutional issues. In Ashwander, Justice Brandeis identified seven components of the avoidance doctrine. [4]

Justice John Paul Stevens called the Ashwander concurrence "one of the most respected opinions ever written by a Member of this Court". [5] Brandeis, a leader of the progressive movement prior to his judicial appointment, offered a broad framing of the avoidance doctrine. The doctrine was adopted heartily by Justice Felix Frankfurter, who was attacked as too "liberal" while he was a Harvard scholar and actively supported the New Deal programs. [6] [7] That tool of judicial restraint espoused by "liberals" was largely inspired by the response of Brandeis and Frankfurter to the activist "conservative" Supreme Court in the 1930s, which struck down legislation as infringing on freedom of contract and other doctrines such as substantive due process. [8]

In recent years, doctrines of judicial restraint have more often been criticized when they are used by conservative jurists. [9]

Dissent

In the 1979 case NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote the dissent in which he argued that if the constitutional issue is not plainly clear in the argument, courts should avoid making the decision based on constitutional questions. In such instances, he argued that courts should decide if a particular interpretation is "fairly possible." [10]

See also

Related Research Articles

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review in the United States, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws and statutes they find to violate the Constitution of the United States. Decided in 1803, Marbury is regarded as the single most important decision in American constitutional law. The Court's landmark decision established that the U.S. Constitution is actual law, not just a statement of political principles and ideals. It also helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the federal government.

Precedent is a principle or rule established in a legal case that becomes authoritative to a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar legal issues or facts. The legal doctrine stating that courts should follow precedent is called stare decisis.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Political question</span> Legal doctrine of political matters justiciability

In United States constitutional law, the political question doctrine holds that a constitutional dispute that requires knowledge of a non-legal character or the use of techniques not suitable for a court or explicitly assigned by the Constitution to the U.S. Congress, or the President of the United States, lies within the political, rather than the legal, realm to solve, and judges customarily refuse to address such matters. The idea of a political question is closely linked to the concept of justiciability, as it comes down to a question of whether or not the court system is an appropriate forum in which to hear the case. This is because the court system only has the authority to hear and decide a legal question, not a political one. Legal questions are deemed to be justiciable, while political questions are nonjusticiable. One scholar explained:

The political question doctrine holds that some questions, in their nature, are fundamentally political, and not legal, and if a question is fundamentally political ... then the court will refuse to hear that case. It will claim that it doesn't have jurisdiction. And it will leave that question to some other aspect of the political process to settle out.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ripeness</span> Readiness of a case for litigation in US law

In United States law, ripeness refers to the readiness of a case for litigation; "a claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all." For example, if a law of ambiguous quality has been enacted but never applied, a case challenging that law lacks the ripeness necessary for a decision.

Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that redistricting qualifies as a justiciable question under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, thus enabling federal courts to hear Fourteenth Amendment-based redistricting cases. The court summarized its Baker holding in a later decision as follows: "the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits the authority of a State Legislature in designing the geographical districts from which representatives are chosen either for the State Legislature or for the Federal House of Representatives.". The court had previously held in Gomillion v. Lightfoot that districting claims over racial discrimination could be brought under the Fifteenth Amendment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Felix Frankfurter</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1939 to 1962

Felix Frankfurter was an Austrian-born American jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1939 until 1962, during which period he was a noted advocate of judicial restraint in its judgements.

A Due Process Clause is found in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, which prohibit the deprivation of "life, liberty, or property" by the federal and state governments, respectively, without due process of law.

Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held 6—3 that, while the Fourth Amendment was applicable to the states, the exclusionary rule was not a necessary ingredient of the Fourth Amendment's right against warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures. In Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914), the Court held that as a matter of judicial implication the exclusionary rule was enforceable in federal courts but not derived from the explicit requirements of the Fourth Amendment. The Wolf Court decided not to incorporate the exclusionary rule as part of the Fourteenth Amendment in large part because the states which had rejected the Weeks Doctrine had not left the right to privacy without other means of protection. However, because most of the states' rules proved to be ineffective in deterrence, the Court overruled Wolf in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). That landmark case made history as the exclusionary rule enforceable against the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the same extent that it applied against the federal government.

Justiciability concerns the limits upon legal issues over which a court can exercise its judicial authority. It includes, but is not limited to, the legal concept of standing, which is used to determine if the party bringing the suit is a party appropriate to establishing whether an actual adversarial issue exists. Essentially, justiciability seeks to address whether a court possesses the ability to provide adequate resolution of the dispute; where a court believes that it cannot offer such a final determination, the matter is not justiciable.

Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that the United States does not have a general federal common law and that U.S. federal courts must apply state law, not federal law, to lawsuits between parties from different states that do not involve federal questions. In reaching this holding, the Court overturned almost a century of federal civil procedure case law, and established the foundation of the modern law of diversity jurisdiction.

An advisory opinion is an opinion issued by a court or a commission like an election commission that does not have the effect of adjudicating a specific legal case, but merely advises on the constitutionality or interpretation of a law. Some countries have procedures by which the executive or legislative branches may certify important questions to the judiciary and obtain an advisory opinion. In other countries or specific jurisdictions, courts may be prohibited from issuing advisory opinions.

Judicial restraint is a judicial interpretation that recommends favoring the status quo in judicial activities and is the opposite of judicial activism. Aspects of judicial restraint include the principle of stare decisis ; a conservative approach to standing and a reluctance to grant certiorari; and a tendency to deliver narrowly tailored verdicts, avoiding "unnecessary resolution of broad questions."

In United States law, jurisdiction-stripping, is the limiting or reducing of a court's jurisdiction by Congress through its constitutional authority to determine the jurisdiction of federal courts and to exclude or remove federal cases from state courts.

William Irwin Grubb was a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

In Constitutional law, the Last Resort Rule is a largely prudential rule which gives a federal court the power to avoid a constitutional issue in some circumstances. This rule dictates that, even if all other jurisdictional and justiciability obstacles are surmounted, federal courts still must avoid a constitutional issue if there is any other ground upon which to render a final judgment. The last resort rule can function as a distinct barrier to Constitutional avoidance. It is articulated by Justice Brandeis in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority.

Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District, 509 U.S. 1 (1993), was a case before the United States Supreme Court.

Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288 (1936), was a United States Supreme Court case that provided the first elaboration of the doctrine of "Constitutional avoidance".

American Electric Power Company v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court, in an 8–0 decision, held that corporations cannot be sued for greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) under federal common law, primarily because the Clean Air Act (CAA) delegates the management of carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Brought to court in July 2004 in the Southern District of New York, this was the first global warming case based on a public nuisance claim.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal law in the Marshall Court</span>

The Marshall Court (1801–1835) heard forty-one criminal law cases, slightly more than one per year. Among such cases are United States v. Simms (1803), United States v. More (1805), Ex parte Bollman (1807), United States v. Hudson (1812), Cohens v. Virginia (1821), United States v. Perez (1824), Worcester v. Georgia (1832), and United States v. Wilson (1833).

References

  1. ↑ Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of L.A., 331 U.S. 549, 571 (1947) (reciting a nonexhaustive list of grounds supporting the avoidance doctrine); see also Paul A. Freund (1957). "Introduction". In Alexander M. Bickel (ed.). The Unpublished Opinions of Mr. Justice Brandeis. University of Chicago Press. p. xvii. ISBN   978-0226046020. (Judicial self-restraint is premised on an "awareness of the limits of human capacity, the fallibility of judgment, the need for diffusion of power and responsibility, the indispensability of husbanding what powers one has, of keeping within bounds if action is not to outrun wisdom.").
  2. ↑ Ex parte Randolph, 20 F. Cas. 242, 254 (C.C.D. Va. 1833) (No. 11,558).
  3. ↑ Ex parte Randolph, 20 F. Cas. 242 (C.C.D. Va. 1833) (No. 11,558).
  4. ↑ Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 298, 346–48 (1936).
  5. ↑ Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 693 (1986) (Stevens, J., dissenting).
  6. ↑ Thomas, Helen Shirley (1960). Felix Frankfurter: Scholar on the Bench. The Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 19–20. ISBN   978-0801806285.
  7. ↑ Urofsky, Melvin I. (1991). Felix Frankfurter: Judicial Restraint and Individual Liberties. Twayne's Twentieth-Century American Biography Series. Twayne. pp.  20–22. ISBN   978-0805777741.
  8. ↑ Lash, Joseph P. (1975). "Introduction". From the Diaries of Felix Frankfurter. W. W. Norton & Co. pp.  57–58. ISBN   978-0393074888.
  9. ↑ See, e.g.:
    • Gerald M. Gallivan (1985). "Supreme Court Jurisdiction and the Wyoming Constitution: Justice v. Judicial Restraint". Land and Water Law Review. 20: 159.
    • Steven M. Kahaner (1988). "Separation of Powers and the Standing Doctrine: The Unwarranted Use of Judicial Restraint". George Washington Law Review. 56: 104.
    • Christopher A. Crain (1990). "Note, Judicial Restraint and the Non-Decision in Webster v. Reprod. Health Servs". Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. 13: 263.
    • Linda Greenhouse (July 22, 1993). "The Supreme Court: A Sense of Judicial Limits". The New York Times. p. A1. (referring to the Ginsburg nomination and noting surprise at a "liberal" jurist espousing techniques of judicial restraint).
  10. ↑ Washington University Law Review (January 1980). "Washington University Law Review: NLRB Has No Jurisdiction Over Lay Teachers in Parochial Schools, NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 440 U.S. 490 (1979)". Archived from the original on 2015-02-22.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.