Page:Moore v. Harper.pdf/54

16 free to condition the effectiveness of a change in state law on external events, including this Court’s actions in cases properly before it. But, as should be obvious, such a trigger provision cannot be the entire basis of an Article III case or controversy. Where, as here, the Court cannot affect the adjudicated rights and liabilities of the parties in the case below, a state legislature cannot manufacture a justiciable controversy by providing that state law will change in some way depending on how this Court answers a moot question. That would simply be a roundabout way of asking this Court to render an advisory opinion. But “federal courts cannot give answers simply because someone asks.” Uzuegbunam, 592 U. S., at ___ (, dissenting) (slip op., at 12). That is true when the request comes from Congress, see Muskrat v. United States, 219 U. S. 346, 360–361 (1911), and it is equally true when the request comes from a state legislature.