Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 536

Cite as: 558 U. S. 310 (2010) 

375 

Roberts, C. J., concurring 

but because, in the absence of any valid narrower ground of 
decision,  there  is  no  way  to  avoid  Citizens  United’s  broader 
constitutional argument. 

The  dissent  advocates  an  approach  to  addressing  Citizens 
United’s claims  that I  ﬁnd quite  perplexing.  It presumably 
agrees  with  the  majority  that  Citizens  United’s  narrower 
statutory  and  constitutional  arguments  lack  merit—other­
wise its conclusion that the group should lose this case would 
make no sense.  Despite agreeing that these narrower argu­
ments  fail,  however,  the  dissent  argues  that  the  majority 
should nonetheless latch on to one of them in order to avoid 
reaching the broader constitutional question of whether Aus­
tin remains good law.  It even suggests that the Court’s fail­
ure to adopt one of these concededly meritless arguments is 
a  sign  that  the  majority  is  not  “serious  about  judicial  re­
straint.”  Post, at 408. 

This approach is based on a false premise: that our practice 
of  avoiding  unnecessary  (and  unnecessarily  broad)  constitu­
tional  holdings  somehow  trumps  our  obligation  faithfully  to 
interpret  the  law.  It  should  go  without  saying,  however, 
that  we  cannot embrace  a  narrow  ground of  decision  simply 
because it is narrow; it must also be right.  Thus while it is 
true that “[i]f it is not necessary to decide more, it is neces­
sary  not  to  decide  more,”  post,  at  405  (internal  quotation 
marks  omitted),  sometimes  it  is  necessary  to  decide  more. 
There  is  a  difference  between  judicial  restraint  and  judicial 
abdication.  When  constitutional  questions  are  “indispen­
sably  necessary”  to  resolving  the  case  at  hand,  “the  court 
must  meet  and  decide  them.”  Ex  parte  Randolph,  20 
F.  Cas.  242,  254  (No.  11,558)  (CC  Va.  1833)  (Marshall,  C.  J.). 
Because it is necessary to reach Citizens United’s broader 
argument  that  Austin  should  be  overruled,  the  debate  over 
whether to consider this claim on an as-applied or facial basis 
strikes  me  as  largely  beside  the  point.  Citizens  United 
has  standing—it  is  being  injured  by  the  Government’s  en­
forcement  of  the  Act.  Citizens  United  has  a  constitutional