Court Opinion

ID: 9789248
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:32:06.909258+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:20.927672
License: Public Domain

DURHAM, Chief Justice,
concurring:
50 I concur in the result of the majority opinion, and have no quarrel with its analysis of the federal due process question. I believe, however, that in addressing the federal constitutional challenge before the state constitutional challenge, the opinion overlooks the proper order of analysis. Seq, eg., West v. Thomson Newspapers, 872 P.2d 999, 1006 (Utah 1994).
T 51 Conceptually, there will be no claim of a violation of federal rights requiring redress if state law prohibits the challenged action. See, Hans Linde, E Pluribus-Constitutional Theory and State Courts, 18 Ga. L.Rev. 165, 178 (1984). Thus, if a state statute, common law rule, or constitutional provision is dispositive of a claim before us, federal analysis need not be undertaken as part of a "dual sovereignty" approach. Cf, Robert Utter, Swimming in the Jaws of the Crocodile: State Court Comment on Federal Constitutional Issues when Disposing of Cases on State Constitutional Grounds, 68 Tex. L.Rev. 1025, 1047 (1985) ("[Wlhen the state court finds that the state constitutional provision condemns the challenged conduct ... the state constitution will have resolved the *949issue in controversy; analysis of the federal provision will not be necessary to the case.").
52 The failure to undertake independent state analysis in cases where state law is argued contributes to a paucity of precedent and the absence of an independent and adequate state ground for our holding. This result is occasionally thrust upon us by parties who fail to raise state constitutional questions, see Brigham City v. Stuart, 2005 UT 18, TT12-14, 122 P.3d 506, rev'd., 547 U.S. 898, 126 S.Ct. 1943, 164 LEd.2d 650 (2006), but I think it is unfortunate when we embrace it ourselves.
T 53 Justice PARRISH concurs in Chief Justice DURHAM's opinion.