Opinion ID: 1860261
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Priority of Issues

Text: Both parties' issues are properly before the Court. However, because both a question of statutory construction and application, and a question of constitutionality are presented, the order in which the issues should be taken up by the Court must first be addressed. Molly Malone's argues that the constitutionality of the statute must be addressed first because to do otherwise requires application of a potentially unconstitutional statute. In support of this position, Molly Malone's cites D.F. v. Codell, 127 S.W.3d 571, 578 (Ky.2003), which held a statute to be unconstitutional and then declined to address other issues raised in the case because they were moot. Molly Malone's ignores that the other issues in Codell involved other constitutional challenges to the statutory scheme in question. More importantly, it ignores the longstanding practice of this Court ... to refrain from reaching constitutional issues when other, non-constitutional grounds can be relied upon. Baker v. Fletcher, 204 S.W.3d 589, 597-98 (Ky.2006); see Dawson v. Birenbaum, 968 S.W.2d 663, 666 (Ky. 1998) (It is well settled that where a party pleads both statutory and constitutional claims, the court deciding those claims should limit itself to considering the statutory claims if in so doing the court may avoid deciding complex constitutional issues.); Preston v. Clements, 313 Ky. 479, 232 S.W.2d 85, 88 (1950) (The prevailing rule seems to be that the courts will avoid the question of constitutionality unless necessary to a proper determination of the merits of the cause under consideration.); see also Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P.C., 467 U.S. 138, 157-58, 104 S.Ct. 2267, 81 L.Ed.2d 113 (1984) (It is a fundamental rule of judicial restraint, however, that this Court will not reach constitutional questions in advance of the necessity of deciding them.); Spector Motor Service v. McLaughlin, 323 U.S. 101, 105, 65 S.Ct. 152, 89 L.Ed. 101 (1944) (If there is one doctrine more deeply rooted than any other in the process of constitutional adjudication, it is that we ought not to pass on questions of constitutionality ... unless such adjudication is unavoidable.). This practice of avoiding constitutional questions is further buttressed in this Court's jurisprudence law by the presumption of constitutionality of statutes. Baker, 204 S.W.3d at 598. Therefore, despite Molly Malone's request, this Court cannot address the constitutionality of the statute without first determining whether the Court of Appeals was correct that it barred issuance of the license.