Court Opinion

ID: 9498681
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 17:25:08.722704+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:59:00.452639
License: Public Domain

KLEINFELD, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the result. I would not, however, reach most of the questions the per curiam opinion attempts to resolve because, on the facts of this case, the opinion is merely advisory. This case plainly involves a substantial and direct effect on interstate commerce. A person in Montana engaged in a commercial transaction with a person in Nevada, causing contraband to be brought to Montana. There, the Montana man killed the Nevada man in order to steal the merchandise that had been transported. The doctrine of constitutional avoidance1 counsels that we should not attempt to clarify abstruse and esoteric questions of constitutional law in cases where they will not affect the decision.
Our opinion is driven by a desire to resolve the tension between our decisions *917in Lynch 2 and Lynch II3 as explained in Judge Berzon’s concurrence in Lynch III4 We can wait until the inconsistencies matter, and should. This case is squarely within Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce under any interpretation. Federal courts should not stretch beyond the decisions they need to make in the futile hope of cleaning all of the cobwebs out of constitutional law.

. See, e.g., United States v. Rivera-Guerrero, 377 F.3d 1064, 1069 (9th Cir.2004).

. United States v. Lynch, 282 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir.2002) (Lynch I).

. United States v. Lynch, 367 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir.2004) (Lynch III).

. Lynch III, 367 F.3d at 1163-64.