Mullin v. Al Otro Lado · ¶184

Even assuming Article III presents no obstacle to our review, there was no need to decide the issues presented in this case today. As is often true, “[t]he Court had plenty of other options.” Diamond Alternative Energy, 606 U. S., at 134 (JACKSON, J., dissenting). Our docket is “discretionary,” and “no one is now subject to” metering, so “there was no reason to reach out to decide this case.” West Virginia, 597 U. S., at 755 (KAGAN, J., dissenting). We should have waited for the Government to reinstate a metering policy before reaching the merits. Had we done so, we would have a record establishing how metering works on the ground and how it interacts with the Government’s obligations under §§1158(a)(1) and 1225(a)(1).

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.