recognition that on remand the plaintiff may very well be entitled to no relief at all. See, e.g., Maj.Op. at 86-87 & n. 24, 88 n. 26. In particular, I find this setting singularly inappropriate for an abstract discussion of novel constitutional rights of dubious applicability. 1 . The District Court may, however, have made the case more difficult than it need have been by refusing to rule on the Government’s request that the highly relevant materials contained in the sealed affidavit be disclosed. See Maj. Op. at 91. 2 . See Maj. Op. at 90 (recognizing well-established principle that a court should not consider constitutional arguments unless it has already determined that case cannot be decided on non-constitutional grounds); cf. J.P. v. DeSanti, 653 F.2d 1080, 1090 (6th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). But see Maj. Op. at 80 n. 14 (noting in
holding that no private right of action exists holding that a private right of action exists holding that there is no private right of action against a state governmental entity for violations of the texas constitution holding that the constitution does not encompass a general right to nondisclosure of private information recognizing private right of action