Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 39.0

Cite as:  599 U. S. ____ (2023) 

31 

Opinion of the Court 

protection from the allegedly imminent harm. 

Petitioners’  request  for  a  declaratory  judgment  suffers 
from the same flaw.  See Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum 
Co., 339 U. S. 667, 671–672 (1950).  This form of relief con-
clusively  resolves  “ ‘the  legal  rights  of  the  parties.’ ”    Med-
tronic,  Inc.  v.  Mirowski  Family  Ventures,  LLC,  571  U. S. 
191, 200 (2014) (emphasis added).  But again, state officials 
are  nonparties  who  would  not  be bound  by  the  judgment. 
Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U. S. 880, 892–893 (2008).  Thus, the 
equal  protection  issue  would  not  be  settled  between  peti-
tioners and the officials who matter—which would leave the 
declaratory  judgment  powerless  to  remedy  the  alleged 
harm.  994 F. 3d, at 448 (Costa, J., concurring in part and 
dissenting  in  part)  (“What  saves  proper  declaratory  judg-
ments from a redressability problem—but is lacking here—
is that they have preclusive effect on a traditional lawsuit 
that  is  imminent”).  After  all,  the  point  of  a  declaratory
judgment “is to establish a binding adjudication that ena-
bles the parties to enjoy the benefits of reliance and repose
secured  by  res  judicata.”  18A  C.  Wright,  A.  Miller,  &  E.
Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure §4446 (3d ed. Supp.
2022).  Without preclusive effect, a declaratory judgment is 
little more than an advisory opinion.  Ibid.; see Public Serv. 
Comm’n  of  Utah  v.  Wycoff  Co.,  344  U. S.  237,  242–243 
(1952).

The  individual  petitioners  do  not  dispute—or  even  ad-
dress—any of this.  Instead, they insist that state courts are 
likely to defer to a federal court’s interpretation of federal 
law, thus giving rise to a substantial likelihood that a fa-
vorable judgment will redress their injury.  Brief in Oppo-
sition for Individual Respondents 19–20; Reply Brief for In-
dividual  Petitioners  29.  They  point  out  that,  in  the
Brackeens’ ongoing efforts to adopt Y. R. J., the trial court
stated that it would follow the federal court’s ruling on the 
Brackeens’ constitutional claims.  Ibid.  Thus, they reason,
winning this case would solve their problems.