Courts decide constitutional questions only when a live case compels it

Evidence

A court never seeks to decide a constitutional question. It never volunteers an opinion. It remains silent and inactive until some case comes before it in which the rights of the parties depend upon the constitutional validity of a statute, and a decision upon that question cannot be avoided. … No exception to this principle is created by the provision contained in the Constitution of Massachusetts, Part II, c. 3, art. 2, by which either branch of the Legislature, as well as the Governor and Council, is auth- orized “to require the ‘opinions of the justices of the supreme judicial court, upon important questions of law, and upon solemn occasions.” Under that provision advisory opinions upon constitutional questions have often been required and given. But such advisory opinions are given by the justices as individuals, not by the court. They are not judicial decisions and are not binding upon the court as precedents. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 3488

Categorization

• DEFINE: Sharpens the justiciability/case-or-controversy requirement and the non-binding status of advisory opinions — key institutional-role doctrine.
• XREF: Recalls ch0 and ch46 content on the adjudicative function — courts act only through decided cases — and on advisory opinions lacking precedent force. — connects to: Constitutional validity can only be judged against concrete facts in real cases — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 3493; Judicial review merely extends a settled hierarchy-of-laws principle upward — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 3482; Courts must decide only the case before them, not hypothetical future cases — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1008 (+5 more)

Broader Connections

• Courts must decide only the case before them, not hypothetical future cases #corroborates (0.95) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1008
• Courts refuse constitutional questions based upon inadequate factual records #exemplifies (0.80) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 909
• Common law judges may only decide the case before them #expands (0.78) — Burton, Steven J, An Introduction to Law and Legal…, 227
• Courts make law only as a byproduct of their adjudicative function #corroborates (0.75) — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 15
• Courts have the essential duty to interpret conflicting laws and constitutions #qualifies (0.72) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 481