Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1271_3f14.pdf
Page Number: 65

Cite as:  600 U. S. ____ (2023) 

27 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

to meaningful or principled adjudication by federal courts. 
In  most  cases,  it  seems  likely  that  the  “the  bounds  of  or-
dinary  judicial  review”  will  be  a  forgiving  standard  in
practice, and this federalization of state constitutions will 
serve  mainly  to  swell  federal-court  dockets  with  state-
constitutional questions to be quickly resolved with generic
statements of deference to the state courts.  On the other 
hand, there are bound to be exceptions.  They will arise hap-
hazardly,  in  the  midst  of  quickly  evolving,  politically 
charged controversies, and the winners of federal elections 
may be decided by a federal court’s expedited judgment that 
a state court exceeded “the bounds of ordinary judicial re-
view” in construing the state constitution. 

I would hesitate long before committing the Federal Ju-
diciary to this uncertain path.  And I certainly would not do
so in an advisory opinion, in a moot case, where “the only
function remaining to the court is that of announcing the 
fact and dismissing the cause.”  Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 
506, 514 (1869).

I respectfully dissent.