Court Opinion

ID: 9841921
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-22 20:11:12.383626+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:20.980985
License: Public Domain

Concurring opinion of
Me. Justice Stone,
I concur in the result. It suffices to say that the suit is plainly not one within the equity jurisdiction conferred by §§ 24, 28, of the Judicial Code. But it is. unnecessary, and I am therefore not prepared,'to go further and say anything in support of the view that Congress may not constitutionally confer on the federal courts jurisdiction to render declaratory judgments in cases where,that form of judgment would be an appropriate remedy, or that this *291Court is without constitutional power to review such judgments of state courts when they involve a federal question. Compare Fidelity National Bank & Trust Co. v. Swope, 274 U. S. 123, 130-134. “ It is not the habit of the court to decide questions of a constitutional nature unless absolutely necessary to a decision of the case.” Burton v. United States, 196 U. S. 283, 295. See Blair v. United States, 250 U. S. 273, 279; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U. S. 107, 177; Light v. United States,. 220. U. S. 523, 538. There is certainly no “ case or controversy ” before us requiring an opinion on the power of Congress to incorporate the declaratory judgment into our federal jurisprudence. And the determination now made seems to me very similar itself to a declaratory judgment to the effect that we could not constitutionally be authorized to give such judgments — but is, in addition, prospective, unasked, and unauthorized under any statute.