Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-530.pdf
Page Number: 36

8 

NASA v. NELSON 

SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment 

nourishment,  Inc.  v.  Florida  Dept.  of  Environmental 
Protection, 560 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (plurality opinion)
(joined by ALITO, J.) (slip op., at 12–13). 

Whatever  the  virtues  of  judicial  minimalism,  it  cannot 
justify judicial incoherence.

The  Court  defends  its  approach  by  observing  that
“we  have  only  the  ‘scarce  and  open-ended’ ”  guideposts  of
substantive due process to show us the way.”  Ante, at 11, 
n. 10.  I  would  have  thought  that  this  doctrinal  obscurity
should  lead  us  to  provide  more  clarity  for  lower  courts;
surely one vague opinion should not provide an excuse for 
another. 

The  Court  observes  that  I  have  joined  other  opinions
that  have  assumed  the  existence  of  constitutional  rights. 
Ibid. It is of course acceptable to reserve difficult constitu-
tional  questions,  so  long  as  answering  those  questions  is 
unnecessary  to  coherent  resolution  of  the  issue  presented 
in the case.  So in Cruzan v. Director, Mo. Dept. of Health,
497  U. S.  261,  279–280  (1990),  we  declined  to  decide 
whether  a  competent  person  had  a  constitutional  right  to
refuse  lifesaving  hydration,  because—under  a  constitu-
tional standard we laid out in detail—such a right did not
exist for an incompetent person.  In Herrera v. Collins, 506 
U. S.  390,  417–418  (1993),  we  declined  to  decide  whether 
it  would  be  unconstitutional  to  execute  an  innocent  per-
son, because Herrera had not shown that he was innocent. 
In  New  York  State  Club  Assn.,  Inc.  v.  City  of  New  York,
487  U. S.  1,  10–15  (1988),  we  declined  to  decide  whether 
there  was  a  constitutional  right  of  private  association  for
certain  clubs,  because  the  plaintiff  had  brought  a  facial
challenge,  which  would  fail  if  the  statute  was  valid  in 
many of its applications, making it unnecessary to decide
whether  an  as-applied  challenge  as  to  some  clubs  could 
succeed.  Here,  however,  the  Court  actually  applies  a 
constitutional  informational  privacy  standard  without