After examining the adequate-and-independent-state-grounds doctrine and the considerations that led to its adoption, the discussion reviews the devices used by the U.S. Supreme Court in ambiguous cases before and after Michigan v. Long. The advisory-opinion ban is then considered as a constitutionally required limitation on the Supreme Court's Article III powers and as the constitutional basis for the State-grounds doctrine. Initially the comment addresses the views of two prominent constitutional theorists who believe that the advisory-opinion prohibition is constitutionally required. Next, it presents three distinct and constitutionally defensible models of the advisory-opinion ban. The comment argues that advisory opinions, as a decisional genre, are always constitutionally illegitimate and that the increasing number of advisory opinions rendered after 'Long' must be curbed to ensure that the Supreme Court adheres to the Article III limits on its jurisdiction. 110 footnotes.