Title: Advisory Opinion No. 391

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

REL:10/1/2015
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-
0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
SPECIAL TERM, 2015
____________________
OPINION OF THE JUSTICES
____________________
No. 391
Opinion Issued October 1, 2015
The Honorable Robert Bentley 
Governor of Alabama
Alabama State Capitol
Montgomery, Alabama 36130
Dear Governor Bentley:
We have received your letter of September 9, 2015, in
which you request an advisory opinion on the following
constitutional question:
"Would an amendment of Article IV, § 65 of the
Alabama Constitution to grant the Legislature power
to authorize only a state operated lottery, result
in removal of the existing general ban on gambling
Opinion of the Justices No. 391
or gaming activities in the State and thus, result
in legalizing Class III or other casino style gaming
in the state, with or without further legislative
act?"
Section 12-2-10, Ala. Code 1975, provides that "[t]he
Governor, by a request in writing, or either house of the
Legislature, by a resolution of such house, may obtain a
written opinion of the justices of the Supreme Court of
Alabama or a majority thereof on important constitutional
questions."
We are reluctant to offer an advisory opinion about a
hypothetical constitutional amendment that has not been
embodied in the text of a specific bill. 
"Under § 12-2-10, Code of Alabama 1975, the
Supreme Court is authorized to issue advisory
opinions on important constitutional questions.
However, this court has heretofore restricted these
opinions to questions on the constitutionality of
proposed 
legislation 
arising 
under 
specific
provisions of the Constitution. We view 'proposed
legislation' as a bill introduced and pending in the
Legislature."
Opinion of the Justices No. 242, 356 So. 2d 172, 173 (Ala.
1978) 
(citations 
omitted; 
final 
emphasis 
added). 
The 
amendment
to Article IV, § 65, Ala. Const. 1901, referenced in the
question you have presented for the Justices' opinion, is
purely hypothetical. No bill is attached to the request. When
2
Opinion of the Justices No. 391
constitutional questions raised in a request for an advisory
opinion "do not appear to pertain to a bill which has been
introduced 
in 
the 
[legislature]," 
the 
Justices 
have
respectfully declined to answer the questions. Opinion of the
Justices No. 242, 356 So. 2d at 173. Accord Opinion of the
Justices No. 375, 823 So. 2d 1274, 1275 (Ala. 2002); Opinion
of the Justices No. 369, 730 So. 2d 129, 131 (Ala. 1999).
The question presented, apart from not addressing
specific legislation, asks us to speculate as to the
collateral effect a potential constitutional amendment to
allow only a state-operated lottery might have on the gaming
laws in this State. However, the question presented does not
specify the gaming laws in question. They are identified only
as laws that impose "the existing general ban on gambling or
gaming activities in the State." We do not consider it prudent
to hypothesize as to what statutes, state or federal, may be
contemplated in this request. See Opinion of the Justices No.
382, 907 So. 2d 1022, 1025 (Ala. 2005) (declining to provide
"a speculative opinion" on how a proposed constitutional
amendment would be interpreted by the courts). Because § 12-2-
10 "does not authorize the expression of opinions on
3
Opinion of the Justices No. 391
hypothetical questions," Opinion of the Justices No. 162, 267
Ala. 110, 113, 100 So. 2d 565, 567 (1958), we respectfully
decline your request for an advisory opinion.
Respectfully submitted, 
 /s/ Roy S. Moore      
Roy S. Moore
Chief Justice
 /s/ Michael F. Bolin  
Michael F. Bolin
Associate Justice
4