Court Opinion

ID: 9817035
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 03:51:04.908629+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:00.852653
License: Public Domain

JORDAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the opinion and judgment in this case and write separately simply to emphasize what I believe to be implicit in our decision, namely that we are not directing the District Court to address the defendants’ constitutional arguments if the parties’ dispute can be resolved on other grounds. Long-standing and sound jurisprudential practice dictates that decisions be made on the narrowest grounds available and that constitutional issues be avoided whenever possible. Cf. Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 381, 125 S.Ct. 716, 160 L.Ed.2d 734 (2005) (“The canon [of constitutional avoidance in statutory interpretation] is not a method of adjudicating constitutional questions by other means. Indeed, one of the canon’s chief justifications is that it allows courts to avoid the decision of constitutional questions.” (Original emphasis; internal citations omitted.)) While I do not understand our direction to the District Court on remand to be at odds with that practice, I would not want any ambiguity to be perceived on this point.