Whether the Supreme Court of Guam's advisory opinion constitutes a permissible exercise of the 'judicial authority' that Congress has vested in that court under 48 U.S.C. §1424(a)(1)

QUESTION PRESENTED “It is quite clear that the oldest and most consistent thread in the federal law of justiciability is that the federal courts will not give advisory opinions.” Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 96 (1968) (cleaned up). Yet the Supreme Court of Guam—an Article IV court that Congress created and vested with just one power: the “judicial authority,” 48 U.S.C. §1424(a)(1)—still granted the Governor of Guam’s request for an advisory opinion on the status of a Guam law. That opinion expressly “determined the lack of an injury in fact is not fatal to our ability to adjudicate this matter.” App.17. The question presented is whether the Supreme Court of Guam’s advisory opinion constitutes a permissible exercise of the “judicial authority” that Congress has vested in that court under 48 U.S.C. §1424(a)(1).