Opinion ID: 106531
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Court's remaining arguments against remand are equally unsatisfactory.

Text: It is said that the Kansas Supreme Court did not rest its decision on a state ground (the abrogation, by virtue of the Commission's orders, of Northern's take or pay obligations under the Republic contract), but decided the federal questions. Whatever may have prompted the state court to this courseperhaps a desire to obtain from this Court a broad decision on the federal question or a mistaken belief as to the irrelevancy of the contract question to the existence of the state power now questionedthis surely does not constrict the grounds of our adjudication of the case. It is familiar practice for this Court to refuse to reach federal constitutional questions on which the state courts have predicated decision. It is enough to refer to the landmark concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Brandeis in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U. S. 288, 346-348, enumerating principles designed to avoid the unnecessary adjudication of constitutional questionsa tenet of adjudication to which this Court has always strictly adhered. A remand, it is also said, would be a highly irregular step for the further reasons that the effect of the State Commission's orders on the Republic A contract was not drawn in question in this suit and the Republic Company itself was not a party to the litigation. However, in light of what has already been said the germaneness of that contract issue to the question of the validity of state power in the premises is apparent. And apart from the presumed availability of state procedures for the vouching into the case of the Republic Company, we are informed by the Federal Power Commission that there is now pending in the state courts another case against Northern, to which Republic is a party, that involves the continuing validity of the take or pay provisions of the A contract. [11] Hence, if necessary, the Kansas Supreme Court could on remand of the present case hold its hand pending resolution of the contract issue in the other litigation. In short, I cannot understand why this Court should not remand for determination of a state law issue that may dispose of this case, as the Court has done in other comparable instances. See, e. g., Leiter Minerals, Inc., v. United States, 352 U. S. 220, 228-230; Aquilino v. United States, 363 U. S. 509, 515-516. I would vacate the judgments of the Supreme Court of Kansas and remand the case to that court for a determination, in accordance with Kansas procedures, as to the effect of the State Commission's orders on the Northern-Republic A contract.