Also known as: advisory opinions
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An opinion issued by a court outside the context of an actual case or controversy between adverse parties with concrete stakes. Federal courts are constitutionally barred from rendering such opinions by the Article III case-or-controversy requirement.
Audrey Ashton and other physicians at a rural clinic regularly counsel unmarried adults on contraception. They sue the state in federal court to invalidate a long-dormant statute that technically criminalizes such counseling even though the statute has never been enforced and state officials have issued no recent guidance referencing it. The court dismisses the action because the complete absence of enforcement history leaves only a hypothetical dispute.
Anthony Arnold, a prospective candidate, asks a federal court to declare in advance whether a proposed contribution structure would comply with federal election statutes. No enforcement action has been threatened and no actual contribution has occurred. The court refuses to entertain the request because it seeks a ruling on abstract legal questions rather than a live controversy.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Adam Anderson and an environmental group sue federal agencies over future funding decisions that might affect overseas wildlife habitats. The plaintiffs allege only a generalized interest in species preservation and point to no imminent, concrete injury to themselves. The court dismisses the suit for lack of a justiciable case or controversy.
Amelia Amari appeals a state criminal conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court after the state supreme court rested its decision on an adequate and independent state procedural rule. Because any federal ruling would not alter the outcome, the Court declines review to avoid issuing an opinion untethered to the parties' actual rights.
Austin Abbott, a performer, sues a broadcaster in state court for televising his act without consent. The state court judgment rests on state-law grounds that independently support the result. The U.S. Supreme Court dismisses the writ because federal review would amount to an advisory opinion on an issue that cannot affect the judgment.
Amber Alonzo, a state employee passed over for promotion, challenges a veterans preference statute on equal-protection grounds. The state court upheld the statute on an independent state constitutional ground that fully supports the judgment. The U.S. Supreme Court declines to review the federal issue because any decision would not change the outcome for the parties.
Article III limits federal judicial power to actual cases or controversies. A request for a ruling on a hypothetical or abstract legal question therefore falls outside that limit.
Supporting sources
A challenge becomes nonjusticiable when the statute has never been enforced and no realistic threat of enforcement exists. The resulting dispute is purely hypothetical and seeks an advisory opinion.
Supporting sources
No. A declaratory judgment action remains justiciable only when it presents a concrete dispute between adverse parties with real stakes. An unduly hypothetical request for a declaration still seeks an advisory opinion.
Supporting sources
When a state judgment rests on an adequate and independent state ground, any federal ruling on the federal issue would not affect the outcome. The Supreme Court therefore treats review as an impermissible advisory opinion.
Supporting sources
…jurisdiction with respect to [their] civil enforcement." § 437c (b). The Commission is authorized under § 437f (a) to render advisory opinions with respect to activities possibly violating the Act, the Title 18 sections, or the campaign funding provisions of Title 26, the effect of which is that "[n]otwithstanding any other…