Opinion ID: 1061059
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Facial Unconstitutionality of a Statute

Text: Since an administrative agency has no authority under Tennessee law to consider the constitutionality of a statute, the agency must refuse to address facial constitutional challenges raised in contested case proceedings. Hearing challenges to issues which the agency cannot resolve may unduly prolong and complicate administrative proceedings. We see no good reason to require that parties raise facial constitutional challenges before agencies which lack the power to resolve the issue. The law should not require one to perform useless and futile acts. See e.g., Watts v. Burkhart, 854 F.2d 839, 848 (6th 1988); Key Haven v. Board of Trustees of Internal Improvm't Trust Fund, 427 So.2d 153, 157 (Fla. 1982); Duncan v. Missouri Bd. for Architects, 744 S.W.2d 524 (Mo. App. 1988); Johnson v. Elkin, 263 N.W.2d 123, 127 (N.D. 1978); Mobil Oil Corp. v. City of Rocky River, 38 Ohio St.2d 23, 309 N.E.2d 900 (Ohio 1974). If a party in a contested case proceeding petitions an agency for a declaratory order, the agency should determine those issues which are within the scope of its authority or refuse to issue an order. The party may seek judicial review of the resolved issues and of those issues that the agency refused or was without authority to consider. In either circumstance, the party may challenge the constitutionality of a statute regardless of whether it was raised at the agency level.