Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1498_8mjp.pdf
Page Number: 35.0

Cite as:  590 U. S. ____ (2020) 

9 

Opinion of ALITO, J. 

Third, the Court suggests that the grant of review, brief-
ing, and argument on §113 may warrant resolving the ques-
tion of state-court jurisdiction.  Ibid.  But that presentation 
has not cleared up serious issues surrounding §§113(b) and
(h).  And  sunk  costs  cannot  justify  a  departure  from  our
usual practice of “deciding only what is necessary to the dis-
position of the immediate case.”  Whitehouse v. Illinois Cen-
tral R. Co., 349 U. S. 366, 373 (1955). 

* 

* 

* 
Section 113 may simply be a piece of very bad draftsman-
ship, with pieces that cannot be made to fit together.  Or it 
may be a puzzle with a solution that neither the parties, the
Court, nor I have been able to solve.  In a later case, briefing
and  argument  may  provide  answers  that  have  thus  far
eluded us.  Since we are not required to attempt an answer 
in this case, the prudent course is to hold back.