Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-309_4f15.pdf
Page Number: 17

2 

CARNEY v. ADAMS 

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring 

quirement could remain even if the other were constitution-
ally  unenforceable.  It  is  worth  noting  that  federal  courts 
are not ideally positioned to address such a sensitive issue 
of state constitutional law.  They may therefore be well ad-
vised  to  consider  certifying  such  a  question  to  the  State’s 
highest  court.  See  Leavitt  v.  Jane  L.,  518  U. S.  137,  139 
(1996) (per curiam) (“Severability [of a state statute] is of
course a matter of state law”); Hooper v. Bernalillo County 
Assessor, 472 U. S. 612, 624 (1985) (“It is for the New Mex-
ico courts to decide, as a matter of state law, whether the 
state  legislature  would  have  enacted  the  statute  without 
the invalid portion”); see also Arizonans for Official English 
v.  Arizona,  520  U. S.  43,  77  (1997)  (encouraging  certifica-
tion of “novel or unsettled questions of state law” to “hel[p] 
build a cooperative judicial federalism” (internal quotation
marks  omitted;  alteration  in  original));  Elkins  v.  Moreno, 
435  U. S.  647,  662,  n.  16  (1978)  (certifying  a  question  of 
state law sua sponte because it was “one in which state gov-
ernments have the highest interest”).  Certification may be
especially warranted in a case such as this, where invali-
dating  a  state  constitutional  provision  would  affect  the 
structure of one of the State’s three major branches of gov-
ernment.