Court Opinion

ID: 9537034
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:11:38.049645+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:55:49.183455
License: Public Domain

SHEPARD, Justice,
specially concurring.
I concur with the majority opinion holding that the promulgation of I.A.R. 12.1 is constitutional under the inherent power of this Court. In view of the majority’s heavy reliance upon In re Elliott, 74 Wash.2d 600, 446 P.2d 347 (Wash.1968), I feel it necessary to express a caveat.
In the instant case, this Court has exercised its inherent power and rule-making authority. The Washington Court in Elliott was confronted with the assertion that the legislature had unconstitutionally enacted a statute which required that the Supreme Court of that state “shall render” an opinion in response to a request from “any federal court before whom a proceeding is pending.” A divided Washington Court upheld the constitutionality of that statute over vigorous dissents. Much in the opinions in Elliott dealt with the issue of whether such statute could impose upon the court the duty to render advisory opinions. Within the opinions in Elliott are references to the actions of the Supreme Courts of New Hampshire and Maine, who, like Idaho, have approached the certification question through court rule and observations that if New Hampshire could solve the certification problem by court rule, certainly Washington should be able to do so by statute. I view the New Hampshire and Maine situations as totally inapplicable, at least as they may relate to Idaho. The Constitution of the State of Maine provides:
“The Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court shall be obliged to give their opinion upon important questions of law, and upon solemn occasions, when required by *138the Governor, Senate or House of Representatives.” Maine Const, art. 6, § 3.
The Constitution of New Hampshire provides:
“Each branch of the legislature as well as the governor and council shall have authority to require the opinions of the justices of the supreme court upon important questions of law and upon solemn occasions.” New Hampshire Const. Pt. 2, art. 74.
The instant case does not deal specifically with the ability of the legislature or the executive branch to request advisory opinions of this Court, but in view of some of the authorities cited in the majority opinion, I deem it necessary to express my view. In my judgment, any such purported legislative authorization or requirement of advisory opinions by this Court would be unconstitutional as an invasion of the inherent power of this Court. Idaho Const, art. 2, § 1, art. 5, § 13.