{"id":150,"date":"2013-05-17T10:00:06","date_gmt":"2013-05-17T10:00:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/?p=150"},"modified":"2023-07-31T17:05:16","modified_gmt":"2023-07-31T21:05:16","slug":"supreme-court-adheres-to-doctrine-of-constitutional-avoidance","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/constitutional-avoidance\/supreme-court-adheres-to-doctrine-of-constitutional-avoidance\/","title":{"rendered":"(4) Supreme Court Adheres to Doctrine of Constitutional Avoidance."},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In <a href=\"http:\/\/www.courts.ri.gov\/Courts\/SupremeCourt\/Opinions\/11-99.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">State v. R.I. Brotherhood of Correctional Officers, No. 2011-99-Appeal<\/a>, the Rhode Island Supreme Court reaffirmed the well-settled doctrine of constitutional avoidance, which holds that the Court shall not decide constitutional issues unless it is absolutely necessary to do so.\u00a0 Consistent with the doctrine, the Court refrained from deciding whether a state statute violates the principle of separation of powers and decided the case on other grounds.\u00a0 <i>Id<\/i>. at 11 n.9.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In State v. R.I. Brotherhood of Correctional Officers, No. 2011-99-Appeal, the Rhode Island Supreme Court reaffirmed the well-settled doctrine of constitutional avoidance, which holds that the Court shall not decide constitutional issues unless it is absolutely necessary to do so.\u00a0 Consistent with&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[25],"tags":[18,14],"class_list":["post-150","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-constitutional-avoidance","tag-appellate-practice","tag-rhode-island-supreme-court"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/150","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=150"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/150\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=150"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=150"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=150"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}