Court Opinion

ID: 9428996
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:25:25.176241+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:16.595155
License: Public Domain

Justice Powell,
with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Rehnquist join,
concurring in part.
I concur in the judgment and all of the Court’s opinion except Part II-C. The Court concludes in Part II-B that there has been no substantial impairment of ERG’s contractual rights. The closing sentence states that “ERG’s reasonable expectations have not been impaired by the Kansas Act.” Ante, at 416. This conclusion is dispositive, and it is unnecessary for the Court to address the question of whether, if there were an impairment of contractual rights, it would constitute a violation of the Contract Clause. See Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus, 438 U. S. 234, 245 (1978).
The Court concludes in Part II-C that even if ERG’s “contractual interests” were impaired, the Act farthers “significant and legitimate state interests” and is a valid exercise of the State’s police power. Ante, at 416-419. I do not necessarily disagree with this conclusion, particularly in the context of the pervasive regulation of public utilities. I decline to join Part II-C, however, because it addresses a substantial question and our discussion of the separate issue in Part II-B disposes of this case.