Why can&#39;t federal courts issue advisory opinions? In the United States, federal courts are not allowed to issue advisory opinions under the "case or controversy" requirement specified in the Constitution. Many states also do not allow their courts to issue advisory opinions. Why are advisory opinions prohibited? What's the rationale for the "case or controversy" requirement?
Advisory opinions violate the separation-of-powers doctrine. The "case or controversy" clause helps enforce this separation. The judicial branch is responsible for resolving legal disputes by interpreting and applying existing law. In doing so, it may incidentally modify or extend the law. Courts are only supposed to do this to the extent necessary to resolve disputes. Outside a legal dispute, the legislative branch is solely responsible for making changes to the law. If courts were allowed to issue advisory opinions, they would be effectively be altering the law without addressing an actual dispute. As such, advisory opinions violate the separation-of-powers doctrine. The "case or controversy" requirement exists to ensure that the judicial branch does not usurp the powers of the legislative branch. Relevant quote from page 45 (PDF page 10) of Separation of Powers: An Old Doctrine Triggers a New Crisis: [...] one of the major arguments [...] against advisory opinions is that they violate the separation of powers doctrine. Judicial power, it is said, should be limited to deciding litigated cases. When justices issue opinions on contentions that have not yet been the subject of legal dispute, these justices approach the status of lawmakers.
The question is oddly phrased: The law does not give allowances for its violation. Many laws have exceptions. E.g., the law against killing endangered animals contains an exception for defensive killings. Perhaps you are thinking of safe harbors? For example, there are general provisions in the law like "exigent circumstances" that allow police to proceed with actions that, absent those provisions, would constitute violations of law. "Permission" to violate a right can be granted explicitly in the form of a warrant, which allows law enforcement to "violate" specific property and freedom rights. Finally, one might consider an executive pardon or jury-nullification to be ex post "permission to break the law."
There are a number of issues here. The question mentions: Taxes, which I presume must be authorized and regulated by the US Constitution, but I don't know the details Not exactly. The states existed before the Federal government. They are not created by the Federal Constitution, nor authorized by it. A number of restrictions on state powers and actions are specified by the Federal Constitution, and a number of others are imposed by Federal law. (the Federal courts have found implied restrictions beyond the explicitly stated ones.) But there is no Federal provision granting states the power to impose taxes, only restrictions on that pre-existing power. States cannot impose taxes so as to violate rights federally guaranteed, or to place unreasonable burdens on the exercise of those rights. For example, states cannot impose different taxes or tax rates on a racial basis. States cannot impose different taxes on residents of other states temporarily present in, or doing business in the state. States cannot impose different taxes on people newly moved there from other states, compared to long-established residents. State taxes must not violate the Equal Protection clause. However, states may choose the type and amount of taxes to impose. They can use sales tax, VAT tax, property tax, income tax, excise tax, flat tax, or any combination that their legislatures pass. Different taxes may be imposed on different professions or kinds of businesses. Does the US Constitution guarantee all citizens have the natural right to conduct their own business affairs? Not as such, no. The Due Process and Equal Protection clauses limit to some extent the ability of a state to prohibit a particular business on a whim. But when a state asserts that a particular business is harmful, and demonstrates a plausible basis for that view, so that the law passes "Rational basis" review, the state can prohibit it, or heavily regulate it, or license it. If so, does a citizen lose the right to legally own and operate a business if they cannot afford requisite state or local business license fees? A state may require a license to engage in a particular occupation, and may require a fee, one-time or recurring, high or low, for that license. In addition, a tax may be imposed on those in a particular business or profession, which is not imposed on other kinds of business. For example, in many states, lawyers must pay an annual license fee, or they are not allowed to practice. So must many other regulated professions, such as hairstylist. One who cannot afford the fee may not engage in the business or profession. The state may waive or reduce fees for those too poor to afford them, but need not do so, and many states do not so so. Similarly, the state may charge a fee for a driver's license, and one who cannot pay it may not legally drive. Likewise, does a citizen lose the right to utilize the court system to petition for a redress of grievances, if they cannot afford the requisite court fees? Many states have provisions waiving or lowering court fees for those who cannot afford them, but in most cases this is applied only in severe cases, say where a person would have to go without food to afford court fees. There have been a few federal cases requiring fee waivers for those who cannot afford court fees, mostly in connection with criminal defendants. There is not currently a general federal rule requiring court access for those who cannot afford court fees. Perhaps there should be. A case could be made that Equal Protection requires this, but Federal Courts have not so held. Federal courts have held that holding people in jail or prison because they truly cannot afford fines, bail, or court fees is an unconstitutional denial of Equal Protection. But states need not waive such fees; they can be deferred and charged should the person earn enough money to (just barely) afford them. Even this rule is not yet invariably enforced, and many state courts routinely ignore it. By the way "petition for a redress of grievances" doe snot normally refer to bringing a court case, but to asking a legislature to change a law, or asking an administrator or executive to exercise permitted discretion in a particular way. And lastly, if a citizen is convicted of a crime or infraction, and the sentence requires the convict to utilize government services (e.g. prison services, probation services, registration services, etc.); under the US Constitution, can state government agencies providing these services legally require the convict to pay fees for these services (e.g. prison service fees, probation service fees, registration service fees), if these fees were not explicitly included in the sentence as fines? Yes it can impose such fees, but usually only when neither the convict nor his or her dependents will be impoverished by such fees, as I understand it. If a state attempts to pass or enforce state legislation dictating such fees, should this legislation generally be struck down as unconstitutional? Such laws will not be held unconstitutional by US Federal courts under the Federal Constitution, unless they are found to violate Equal Protection, Due Process, or other specifically imposed restrictions on the state. For example, fees which were in practice imposed on people of one religion, but not those of another, would be struck down. But a fee imposed on everyone will not usually be overturned. "The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor to steal bread from shops, beg in the streets, and sleep under bridges." -Anatole France
The case was appealed and taken by SCOTUS. Then the case became moot: Trump was banned from Twitter for life, his account permanently suspended. As the Twitter account that was the core of the controversy no longer exists, Trump can't block any accounts anymore. As Trump is disallowed from making a new account, it can't arise with the same fact pattern. Trump is no longer in office. The SCOTUS may only weigh in on live and active cases of controversy. The case is neither live nor active because it was rendered moot in January. As a result, it had to be dismissed, or the decision to take the case overturned. Speculating why they chose one over the other is moot, as there is no majority opinion given and the judges won't answer such questions.
No Federal law and most states have an notice of alibi rule that requires a defendant to identify witnesses who will testify as to their alibi and where the defendant claims to have been. The validity of these rules was upheld by the Supreme Court in Williams v Florida: The Fifth Amendment would not be violated if, after the alibi witness had given evidence, the court granted a continuance to allow the prosecution to seek rebuttal evidence (this point was conceded by Williams's lawyers). Consequently, all the notice-of-alibi law did was allow the prosecution to do so before the trial, instead of having to interrupt the trial. It did not provide the prosecution with more information to use against a defendant than they would eventually get in any event.
The holding of the Miranda decision says: (d) In the absence of other effective measures, the following procedures to safeguard the Fifth Amendment privilege must be observed: the person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him The body of the opinion also says The warning of the right to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that anything said can and will be used against the individual in court. although also He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law When SCOTUS says do this, that is the law. Since SCOTUS say can, will, and can and will, the only safe course of action is to say can and will. This page has some interesting discussion about the problem of the meaning of modals in a legal context. The Miranda warning does not constitute a contractual promise between the arresting officer and the arrestee, so "will" cannot be construed as a binding promise to prosecute and use the evidence in court. "Will" can only be construed as a prediction, as do "may" and "might". If the warning said "can, and mightmay be used against you", that choice or wording would suggest that the probability of statements being used against you is low – that would be totally misleading. The strongest modal should be used, because the probability is high that some statement will indeed be used against the person. Simply saying "can" suggests that it's a mere possibility, as opposed to a probability. "Can and will" is thus the appropriate construction for conveying the probability that your confession will be used against you. "Shall" shall not be used (it is confusing since it doesn't mean what the legal profession sometimes thinks it means); "must" is just plain wrong (it's legally meaningless to say "anything you say must be used against you", when many things that a person says would be inadmissible).
Is A or B subject to Canadian employment law? Canada and the relevant province(s) will decide in their courts if Canadian or US law applies. The USA and the relevant state(s) will decide in their courts if Canadian or US law applies. It would be open to the employee to bring an action in any relevant court; the court will then decide what law applies and if they have jurisdiction - that is part of what sovereignty means! A Canadian court can decide a matter using US law and vice-versa. Things that the court would take into consideration are if the company did business (outside this single arrangement) in Canada or was US exclusive, the number of other trans-national interns, if the arrangement was seen as a device for avoiding employment obligations in either jurisdiction. If one is subject to Canadian law then they both are. Will either party get into trouble with the Canadian government? Assuming that the arrangement is subject to Canadian law then the company would be obliged to pay wages and may be subject to fines for not having done so. If so, what enforcement (and/or punishment) mechanisms does the Canadian government have at their disposal to enforce their employment laws against A or B? B - nothing; they have not broken the law. A - an order to pay wages and fines. Enforcement may require a judgement in a US court; either by bringing the case in one the first instance or applying to have a Canadian judgement given effect in the US. Edit The OP has added the proviso that the document states that it subject to US law and jurisdiction. If it just says that, it is prima facie invalid - a contract cannot exclude the jurisdiction of any court and an attempt to do so renders it unlawful. However, if it said that it was subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction and law of, say, Wisconsin, then a Canadian court would consider the parties intent and the relevant Canadian national and provincial law and might decide that the proper forum is a Wisconsin court and refuse to hear the complaint. Things they will consider are that there will be Canadian and provincial laws that cannot be excluded by contract, the hardship changing the forum will have on the plaintiff or defendant, if the result (assuming the facts are proven) would be demonstrably different in a US vs. a Canadian court etc.
It is done to prevent or at least provide a defence against a latter argument based on Estoppel; which at the risk of trivialising something that is very complex means that if you indicate to someone that you will or won't do something and they act on that indication then they may have a claim if you don't do what you indicated. When lawyers say this they are usually outlining a client's possible future actions so estoppel is in play. If they include this they are specifically saying "... But we might not do that."