Landor v. Louisiana Dept of Corrections and Public Safety · ¶64
The majority addresses only the constitutional argument, giving short shrift to the “well-established principle . . . that normally the Court will not decide a constitutional question if there is some other ground upon which to dispose of the case.” Bond v. United States, 572 U. S. 844, 855 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U. S. 288, 347 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring); Spector Motor Service, Inc. v. McLaughlin, 323 U. S. 101, 105 (1944) (calling this principle “more deeply rooted than any other in the process of constitutional adjudication”). The majority is of course correct that the practice is prudential, not inexorable. Ante, at 4, n. 1. But there is prudence behind a prudential rule. The reasons for this one include “the delicacy” and “comparative finality” “of [the] function” of invalidating a congressional enactment, and “the consideration…Read in context ›
slip opinion, revised 6/28/26
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.