40 A.3d 930
Me.2012Background
- House of Representatives requests advisory opinion under Maine Constitution art. VI, §3 on meaning of engaging in trade or commerce by the Treasurer of State
- Questions focus on ownership of business interests by the Treasurer and its effect on constitutional constraints
- Parties filed briefs: eight Representatives, Maine Attorney General, and Maine Heritage Policy Center; no responsive briefs from others
- Court assesses whether a solemn occasion exists for answering the questions and whether advisory opinions are appropriate here
- Court concludes the questions were abstract with no live dispute or immediate exigency, lacking necessary facts
- Court declines to answer all three questions, finding no solemn occasion present
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does mere ownership of business interests by the Treasurer constitute engaging in trade or commerce | House contends a solemn occasion exists for Q1 | AG argues no solemn occasion exists for any question | No solemn occasion; decline to answer |
| Would day-to-day involvement change whether ownership counts as trade or commerce | House maintains Q2 raises live issue if Q1 affirmative | AG asserts no solemn occasion for Q2 either | No solemn occasion; decline to answer |
| If engaged in trade, does that affect the validity of the Treasurer's official acts | House questions potential impact on official actions | AG contends no immediate relevance without a solemn occasion | No solemn occasion; decline to answer |
Key Cases Cited
- Opinion of the Justices, 709 A.2d 1183 (Me. 1997) (advisory opinions require live, substantial questions of law)
- Opinion of the Justices, 673 A.2d 693 (Me. 1996) (non-binding advisory opinions; solemn occasion required)
- Opinion of the Justices, 2004 ME 54 (Me. 2004) (so-called solemn occasion requires live gravity and unusual exigency)
- Opinion of the Justices, 2002 ME 169 (Me. 2002) (live gravity/necessity standard reaffirmed)
- Opinion of the Justices, 348 A.2d 196 (Me. 1975) (illustrates when questions are presented abstractly or without facts)