Opinion ID: 166513
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Fox's Standing

Text: 30 Under the doctrine set forth in Steel, ordinarily we could not address the merits of Fox's claim without first determining that he had Article III standing. But Steel's general rule that the court must first address a plaintiff's constitutional standing has a natural exception when the merits have been resolved with respect to a separate claim for which the plaintiff (likely, a different plaintiff) has such standing. 31 An example of such a circumstance is Norton v. Mathews, 427 U.S. 524, 96 S.Ct. 2771, 49 L.Ed.2d 672 (1976). The Supreme Court in Norton found it unnecessary to decide the jurisdictional issue before it because, as Steel explained, the merits question was decided [against the plaintiff] in a companion case. Steel, 523 U.S. at 98, 118 S.Ct. 1003. Thus, Norton did not use the pretermission of the jurisdictional question as a device for reaching a question of law that otherwise would have gone unaddressed. Id. The Norton exception to the general ban on assumed jurisdiction does not enable[] a court to resolve contested questions of law when its jurisdiction is in doubt and thus does not produce an advisory opinion that infringes on the separation of powers. Id. at 101, 118 S.Ct. 1003. 32 In this case we affirm the judgment against Carolina on a ground that would also require affirmance of the judgment against Fox. Affirming the judgment against Fox would therefore not require an advisory opinion. Thus, as we understand Steel, we can affirm the judgment against Fox without first determining that he has Article III standing. Other circuits have expressed a similar understanding of Steel. See Seale v. INS, 323 F.3d 150, 152-57 (1st Cir.2003) (binding precedent foreordains the outcome on the merits here); Center For Reprod. Law & Policy v. Bush, 304 F.3d 183, 193-95 (2d Cir.2002) (same); see also 21st Century Telesis Joint Venture v. FCC, 318 F.3d 192, 202-03 (Williams, J., dissenting in part) (resolution of one issue between the parties totally resolves the merits of a second issue, so unnecessary to determine jurisdiction over second issue); United States v. Tex. Tech Univ., 171 F.3d 279, 287 n. 11 (5th Cir.1999) (questioning scope of holding in Steel ). Indeed, when the merits are otherwise resolved, it is the adjudication of the standing issue that resembles an advisory opinion. Bush, 304 F.3d at 195. 33 We now explain our ruling on the merits.