Constitutional avoidance (original) (raw)
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).
| Property | Value |
|---|---|
| dbo:abstract | 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). 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." 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. (en) |
| dbo:thumbnail | wiki-commons:Special:FilePath/Brandeisl.jpg?width=300 |
| dbo:wikiPageID | 23412671 (xsd:integer) |
| dbo:wikiPageLength | 8468 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger) |
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID | 1112849291 (xsd:integer) |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink | dbr:Jurisdictional dbr:John_Paul_Stevens dbr:Riding_circuit dbr:United_States_Department_of_the_Treasury dbr:United_States_constitutional_law dbr:Louis_Brandeis dbr:Plurality_opinion dbr:William_J._Brennan_Jr. dbr:Justiciability dbr:Felix_Frankfurter dbr:File:Brandeisl.jpg dbr:Judicial_restraint dbr:Legal_doctrine dbr:United_States_federal_courts dbr:Regulation dbr:Habeas_corpus dbr:Ashwander_v._Tennessee_Valley_Authority dbc:Law_of_the_United_States dbr:Chief_Justice_of_the_United_States dbr:John_Marshall dbr:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States dbr:Freedom_of_contract dbr:New_Deal dbr:Officer_(armed_forces) dbr:Substantive_due_process dbr:Warrant_(law) dbr:Statute dbr:Ashwander_rules |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate | dbt:Law dbt:Reflist |
| dct:subject | dbc:Law_of_the_United_States |
| rdfs:comment | 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). (en) |
| rdfs:label | Constitutional avoidance (en) |
| owl:sameAs | freebase:Constitutional avoidance wikidata:Constitutional avoidance https://global.dbpedia.org/id/4iPdk |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom | wikipedia-en:Constitutional_avoidance?oldid=1112849291&ns=0 |
| foaf:depiction | wiki-commons:Special:FilePath/Brandeisl.jpg |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf | wikipedia-en:Constitutional_avoidance |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of | dbr:Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act dbr:Public_Citizen_v._Department_of_Justice dbr:Merrill_v._Milligan dbr:Bond_v._United_States_(2014) dbr:Brett_Kavanaugh dbr:Johnson_v._Arteaga-Martinez dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_297 dbr:United_States_v._Lovett dbr:United_States_v._More dbr:Consumer_Financial_Protection_Bureau dbr:Employment_Division_v._Smith dbr:Garland_v._Gonzalez dbr:Bourke_v._Beshear dbr:NSA_warrantless_surveillance_(2001–2007) dbr:Nancy_Gertner dbr:Legal_challenges_to_the_Trump_travel_ban dbr:Trump_v._Hawaii dbr:Westside_Community_Board_of_Education_v._Mergens dbr:William_Irwin_Grubb dbr:Last_resort_rule dbr:Adoptive_Couple_v._Baby_Girl dbr:Executive_Order_13780 dbr:Northwest_Austin_Municipal_Utility_District_No._1_v._Holder dbr:Textualism dbr:Ashwander_v._Tennessee_Valley_Authority dbr:Kolender_v._Lawson dbr:Rapanos_v._United_States dbr:Shelby_County_v._Holder dbr:Presumption_of_constitutionality dbr:Sony_BMG_v._Tenenbaum |
| is foaf:primaryTopic of | wikipedia-en:Constitutional_avoidance |
