The following excerpt is from NYS Nat'l Org. Women v. Pataki, 261 F.3d 156 (2nd Cir. 2001):
I repeat that none of this discussion of the effects of a finding of qualified immunity is needed to decide this case. I outline it only to point out that, on this basis, too, reaching the merits of the plaintiffs' delay plus actual prejudice theory is unnecessary. And this fact makes the majority's dicta with respect to the latter theory yet more troublesome. Comments on constitutional questions, and, in particular, comments on difficult ones, should generally be avoided by courts where alternative grounds for decision are available. Cf. Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 122 (1979). And they should even more likely be avoided when, as here, there exist not one but two relatively narrow grounds that completely decide the case.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.