3 ms·
> And the Executive Branch may request an opinion regarding legality of a law from the US Supreme Court? Correct? Not directly, no. Article III of the US Const
by hkhanna 13y ago
> And the Executive Branch may request an opinion regarding legality of a law from the US Supreme Court? Correct?
Not directly, no. Article III of the US Constitution only authorizes the federal courts to hear "cases and controversies." That means so-called "advisory" opinions are not allowed by any federal court, including the Supreme Court.
Thus, as far as I know, there is no procedure for either Congress or the Executive Branch to request an opinion on the constitutionality of a law from the Supreme Court. Instead, a plaintiff with standing must file suit alleging harm by the law. That's the "case or controversy" requirement.
Federal courts is a complicated and dry topic, so this is a broad (and somewhat inaccurate) description. If you'd like to learn more, I recommend the book "Federal Jurisdiction" by Erwin Chermerinsky.
- LekkoscPiwa 13y agoInteresting. And thank you very much for taking your time to explain. I'm a layman here, but that seems a bit awkward to me. Let' say the Congress votes into the law and the President signs a bill suspending civil rights, let's say for blacks. The same purely hypothetical law would require to put them in the concentration camps. Will the Supreme Court just sit on its hands wait and watch? Or am I missing something in the picture? Once again, thanks for your time.
- hkhanna 13y agoIn your hypothetical, yes, the Supreme Court can do nothing to stop this law until one of the (many) people harmed by this law brings suit in federal court. You're right, it is a bit awkward. And I'm sure we could debate the merits of whether such a system is a good thing as a matter of policy. But the "case or controversy" requirement is written in the Constitution, so it is probably here to stay.