Legal Definitions - constitutional avoidance

Constitutional avoidance is a judicial doctrine that guides courts, particularly the U.S. Supreme Court, to decide cases on non-constitutional grounds whenever possible. This means that if a case can be resolved by interpreting a statute or applying a common law principle, the court will choose that path rather than ruling on a potentially complex or far-reaching constitutional question.

In practice, this doctrine often comes into play when a statute or government action has two plausible interpretations: one that clearly aligns with constitutional principles, and another that raises serious doubts about its constitutionality. Faced with such a choice, courts will typically adopt the interpretation that avoids the constitutional issue, thereby upholding the statute and deferring the need to define or expand constitutional law unnecessarily.

Here are some examples illustrating constitutional avoidance:

• Example 1: Interpreting a Public Assembly Law to Avoid Free Speech Concerns

  Imagine a city passes a new ordinance stating, "No person shall gather in groups of more than five individuals within 500 feet of a public park entrance."

  • One interpretation of this ordinance could be very broad, applying to any gathering, including families picnicking, friends meeting, or even a small group of tourists. This broad interpretation might raise significant First Amendment free speech and assembly concerns, as it could unduly restrict peaceful, non-disruptive gatherings.
  • A narrower interpretation might hold that the ordinance only applies to gatherings intended for protest, demonstration, or other activities that could potentially block access or disrupt public order. This interpretation would avoid restricting casual, non-expressive social gatherings.

  A court applying the doctrine of constitutional avoidance would likely choose the narrower interpretation. By doing so, the court avoids having to rule on whether a broad ban on all small groups near a park entrance violates constitutional rights to free speech and assembly, thus preserving the ordinance's purpose without creating a constitutional conflict.

• Example 2: Interpreting a Data Collection Statute to Avoid Privacy Issues

  Consider a federal statute that authorizes a government agency to collect "all relevant data pertaining to national security threats."

  • One interpretation might allow the agency to collect vast amounts of personal data from ordinary citizens, even if only tangentially related to a specific threat, without clear safeguards or oversight. This broad interpretation could raise serious Fourth Amendment privacy concerns regarding unreasonable searches and seizures.
  • A more limited interpretation might require the agency to demonstrate a direct and specific link between the data being collected and an identified national security threat, and to implement robust privacy protections for any data collected.

  A court employing constitutional avoidance would likely favor the more limited interpretation. By requiring a direct link to threats and strong privacy safeguards, the court avoids having to address the potentially difficult constitutional question of whether broad, indiscriminate data collection violates citizens' right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment.