Federal courts still lack authority to issue advisory opinions.

It is not uncommon for federal court opinions to begin with a reference to the Judiciary Act of 1789, but they are sometimes required to do so.

Earlier this month, Judge Eric Murphy of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit wrote the following brief opinion: Bowles vs. Whitmer A reminder to all of us (including litigants before them) that federal courts lack the authority to issue advisory opinions.

his opinion The panel begins with a unanimous vote.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 required Supreme Court justices to “travel” by traveling long distances to resolve cases in new circuit courts. See publication. L.No. 1-20, § 4, 1 Stat. 73, 74–75. A losing litigant can appeal his or her decision to the Supreme Court. See ID. § 13, 1 Statistics. at 81. Some judges have raised “constitutional and practical” challenges to this circuit driving mandate. David P. Currie, Congressional Constitution: The Age of Federalism 54 (1997). Worried that the full court would be seen as biased if it recognized a colleague, they wrote to President Washington that observers might think that the court’s “mutual interest” had “engendered a mutual civility and softness to the detriment of the interests.” 3 Joseph Story, Commentary on the U.S. Constitution § 1573, 440 n.1 (1833). However, the court later upheld the constitutionality of circuit riding, finding that the practice had continued for 10 years and the ‘construction’ of the Constitution had become ‘fixed.’ Stuart vs. Laird5 US 299, 309 (1803).

The plaintiff in this case seeks to reopen this argument. The Michigan Legislature waived the state’s sovereign immunity by establishing the Court of Claims, a specialized court where plaintiffs could bring lawsuits against the state. Currently, the Court of Claims is comprised of judges from the Michigan Court of Appeals. Therefore, when the parties appeal a decision in the Court of Appeals, other appellate judges in the Court of Appeals review the decisions of their peers. According to the plaintiffs, this practice violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Our solution to their challenge must begin with another letter from the judges to President Washington. When asked for legal guidance on diplomatic issues, he responded that he “cannot give an advisory opinion” except for actual cases. FDA v. See All. For Hippocratic Medicine., 602 US 367, 378–79 (2024) (13 citations) George Washington’s Papers: Presidential Series 392 (Kristin Sternberg Patrick ed. 2007)). Because the plaintiffs here are seeking such an opinion on the constitutionality of the Claims Court, we agree with the district court that they lack Article III standing. We check.