Court Opinion

ID: 9427470
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:20:55.225958+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:07.441435
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Stevens,
concurring.
Whether Mr. Orr has a continuing contractual obligation to pay alimony to Mrs. Orr is a question of Alabama law that the Alabama courts have not yet decided. In Part I-B of his opinion, Mr. Justice Rehnquist seems to be making one of two alternative suggestions:
(1) that we should decide the state-law issue; or
*285(2) that we should direct the Supreme Court of Alabama to decide that issue before deciding the federal constitutional issue.
In my judgment the Court has correctly rejected both of these alternatives. To accept either — or a rather confused blend of the two — would violate principles of federalism that transcend the significance of this case.* I therefore join the Court's opinion.

Even if I could agree with Mr. Justice Rehnquist’s view that Mr. Orr’s probability of success on the state-law issue is so remote that we should deny him standing to argue the federal question decided by the Alabama Supreme Court, I still would not understand how he reached the conclusion that the litigation between Mr. and Mrs. Orr is not a "case or controversy” within the meaning of Art. III.