with whom The Chief Justice, Justice White, and Justice O’Connor join, dissenting.
From the earliest days of the Republic it has been recognized that “[t]his Court is without power to give advisory opinions. Hayburn’s Case, 2 Dall. 409 [(1792)].” Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdory, 325 U. S. 450, 461 (1945). The logical corollary of this limitation has been the Court’s “long . . . considered practice not to decide abstract, hypothetical or contingent questions, or to decide any constitutional question in advance of the necessity for its decision.” Ibid, (citations omitted). Such fundamental principles notwithstanding, the Court today delivers what is at best an advisory constitutional pronouncement. The advisory character of the pronouncement is all but conceded by the Court itself, when it acknowledges in the closing footnote of its opinion that appellees must still “prove that the Unification Church is a religious organization within the meaning of the Act” before they can avail themselves of the Court’s extension of the exemption contained in the Minnesota statute. Because I find the Court’s standing analysis wholly unconvincing, I respectfully dissent.
I
Part II of the Court’s opinion concludes that appellees have standing to challenge § 309.515, subd. 1(b), of the Minnesota Charitable Solicitations Act (Act), because they have “plainly met” the case-or-controversy requirements of Art. III. Ante, at 239. This conclusion is wrong. Its error can best be demonstrated by first reviewing three factual aspects of the case which are either misstated or disregarded in the Court’s opinion.
First, the Act applies to appellees not by virtue of the “fifty percent rule,” but by virtue of § 309.52. That provision requires “charitable organizations” to register with the Securities and Real Éstate Division of the Minnesota Department of Commerce. The Holy Spirit Association for the *265Unification of World Christianity (Association) constitutes such a “charitable organization” because it “engages in or purports to engage in solicitation” for a “religious . . . purpose.” § 309.50, subds. 3 and 4 (Supp. 1982). Only after an organization is brought within the coverage of the Act by §309.52 does the question of exemption arise. The exemption provided by the fifty percent rule of §309.515, subd. 1(b), one of several exemptions within the Act, applies only to “religious organizations.” Thus, unless the Association is a “religious organization” within the meaning of the Act, the fifty percent rule has absolutely nothing to do with the Association’s duty to register and report as a “charitable organization” soliciting funds in Minnesota. This more-than-semantic distinction apparently is misunderstood by the Court, for it repeatedly asserts that the Association is required to register “under the Act by virtue of the fifty per cent rule in §309.515, subd. 1(b).” Ante, at 240 (emphasis added).1
Second, the State’s effort to enforce the Act against the Association was based upon the Association’s status as a “charitable organization” within the meaning of §309.52. The State initially sought registration from the Association by letter: “From the nature of your solicitation it appears that [the Association] must complete a Charitable Organization Registration Statement and submit it to the Minnesota Department of Commerce.” Exhibit A to Affidavit of Susan *266E. Fortney, Legal Assistant, Staff of Attorney General of Minnesota, Nov. 2, 1978 (Fortney Affidavit). When the Association failed to register within the allotted time, the State commenced “routine enforcement procedures,” Fortney Affidavit, at 2, by filing a complaint in Minnesota state court. The complaint alleges that “charitable organizations” are required by § 309.52 to register with the State, that the Association comes within the § 309.50, subd. 4, definition of “charitable organizations,” and that “[t]he [Association] has failed to file a registration statement and financial information with the Minnesota Department of Commerce, resulting in a violation of Minn. Stat. § 309.52.” Exhibit F to Fortney Affidavit, at 3.2 This complaint, which never once mentions the fifty percent rule of §309.515, subd. 1(b), nor characterizes the Association as a “religious organization,” is still pending in Minnesota District Court, having been stayed by stipulation of the parties to this lawsuit. Because today’s decision does nothing to impair the statutory basis of the complaint, or the State’s reason for filing it, the State may proceed with its enforcement action before the ink on this Court’s judgment is dry.3
*267Third, appellees have never proved, and the lower courts have never found, that the Association is a “religious organization” for purposes of the fifty percent rule. The District Court expressly declined to make such a finding — “This court is not presently in a position to rule whether the [Association] is, in fact, a religious organization within the Act,” App. to Juris. Statement A-47—and the Court of Appeals was content to decide the case despite the presence of this “ ‘unresolved factual dispute concerning the true character of [ap-pellees’] organization,’” 637 F. 2d 562, 565 (CA8 1981) (quoting Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for Better Environment, 444 U. S. 620, 633 (1980)). The absence of such a finding is significant, for it is by no means clear that the Association would constitute a “religious organization” for purposes of the §309.515, subd. 1(b), exemption. The appellees’ assertion in the District Court that their actions were religious was “directly contradict[ed]” by a “heavy testimonial barrage against the [Association’s] claim that it is a religion.” App. to Juris. Statement A-46.4
*268HH J — i
The Court’s opinion recognizes that the proper standing of appellees in this case is a constitutional prerequisite to the exercise of our Art. III power. See ante, at 238-239. To invoke that power, appellees must satisfy Art. Ill’s case- or-controversy requirement by showing that they have a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy, consisting of a distinct and palpable injury. Ibid. See also Glad*269stone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U. S. 91, 99 (1979); Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, 438 U. S. 59, 72 (1978). I do not disagree with the Court’s conclusion that the threatened application of the Act to appellees constitutes injury in fact.
But injury in fact is not the only requirement of Art. III. The appellees must also show that their injury “fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant.” Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U. S. 26, 41 (1976). The Court purports to find such causation by use of the following sophism: “there is a fairly traceable causal connection between the claimed injury and the challenged conduct — here, between the claimed disabling and the threatened application of § 309.515, subd. 1(b), and its fifty per cent rule.” Ante, at 241.
As was demonstrated above, the statute and the State require the Association to register because it is a “charitable organization” under §309.52, not because of the fifty percent requirement contained in the exemption for religious organizations. Indeed, at this point in the litigation the fifty percent rule is entirely inapplicable to appellees because they have not shown that the Association is a “religious organization.” Therefore, any injury to appellees resulting from the registration and reporting requirements is caused by § 309.52, not, as the Court concludes, by “the . . . threatened application of § 309.515, subd. 1(b)’s fifty per cent rule.” Ante, at 242. Having failed to establish that the fifty percent rule is causally connected to their injury, appellees at this point lack standing to challenge it.
The error of the Court’s analysis is even more clearly demonstrated by a closely related and equally essential requirement of Art. III. In addition to demonstrating an injury which is caused by the challenged provision, appellees must show “that the exercise of the Court’s remedial powers would redress the claimed injuries.” Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, supra, at 74. The importance *270of redressability, an aspect of standing which has been recognized repeatedly by this Court,5 is of constitutional dimension:
“[W]hen a plaintiffs standing is brought into issue the relevant inquiry is whether, assuming justiciability of the claim, the plaintiff has shown an injury to himself that is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. Absent such a showing, exercise of its power by a federal court would be gratuitous and thus inconsistent with the Art. Ill limitation.” Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., supra, at 38.
Appellees have failed to show that a favorable decision of this Court will redress the injuries of which they complain. By affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals, the Court today extends- the exemption of § 309.515, subd. 1(b), to all “religious organizations” soliciting funds in Minnesota. See 637 F. 2d, at 569-570. But because appellees have not shown that the Association is a “religious organization” under that provision, they have not shown that they will be entitled to this newly expanded exemption.6 This uncertainty is expressly recognized by the Court:
*271“We agree with the Court of Appeals that appellees and others claiming the benefits of the religious-organization exemption should not automatically enjoy those benefits. Rather, in order to receive them, appellees may be required by the State to prove that the Unification Church is a religious organization within the meaning of the Act.” Ante, at 255, n. 30 (citation omitted).7
If the appellees fail in this proof — a distinct possibility given the State’s “heavy testimonial barrage against [the Association’s] claim that it is a religion,” App. to Juris. Statement A-46—this Court will have rendered a purely advisory opinion. In so doing, it will have struck down a state statute at the behest of a party without standing, contrary to the undeviating teaching of the cases previously cited. Those cases, I believe, require remand for a determination of whether the Association is a “religious organization” as that term is used in the Minnesota statute.
I — I HH H-1
There can be no doubt about the impropriety of the Court’s action this day. “If there is one doctrine more deeply rooted than any other in the process of constitutional adjudication, it is that we ought not to pass on questions of constitutionality . . . unless such adjudication is unavoidable.” Spector Motor *272Service, Inc. v. McLaughlin, 323 U. S. 101, 105 (1944). Nowhere does this doctrine have more force than in cases such as this one, where the defect is a possible lack of Art. Ill jurisdiction due to want of standing on the part of the party which seeks the adjudication.
“Considerations of propriety, as well as long-established practice, demand that we refrain from passing upon the constitutionality of [legislative Acts] unless obliged to do so in the proper performance of our judicial function, when the question is raised by a party whose interests entitle him to raise it.” Blair v. United States, 250 U. S. 273, 279 (1919), quoted in Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U. S. 288, 341 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring).
The existence of injury in fact does not alone suffice to establish such an interest. “The necessity that the plaintiff who seeks to invoke judicial power stand to profit in some personal interest remains an Art. Ill requirement. A federal court cannot ignore this requirement without overstepping its assigned role in our system of adjudicating only actual cases and controversies.” Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U. S., at 39.
<
In sum, the Court errs when it finds that appellees have standing to challenge the constitutionality of § 309.515, subd. 1(b). Although injured to be sure, appellees have not demonstrated that their injury was caused by the fifty percent rule or will be redressed by its invalidation. This is not to say that appellees can never prove causation or re-dressability, only that they have not done so at this point. The case should be remanded to permit such proof. Until such time as the requirements of Art. Ill clearly have been satisfied, this Court should refrain from rendering significant constitutional decisions.
The examples of this error by the Court are numerous. The Court speaks of the Act “as applied to [appellees] through § 309.515, subd. 1(b)’s fifty per cent rule,” ante, at 233 (emphasis added), “the application of the Act to the Church through § 309.515, subd. 1(b)’s fifty per cent rule,” ante, at 234 (emphasis added), the State’s attempt to enforce the Act against the appellees “in express and exclusive reliance upon the newly enacted fifty per cent rule of § 309.515, subd. 1(b),” ante, at 239, and the State’s “attempt] to use § 309.515, subd. l(b)’s fifty per cent rule in order to compel the Unification Church to register and report under the Act,” ante, at 241. In addition, the Court holds that because the fifty percent rule is unconstitutional, the “appellees cannot be compelled to register and report under the Act on the strength of that provision," ante, at 255 (emphasis added).
The Court errs when it concludes that the basis for the State’s enforcement action was the fifty percent rule of § 309.515, subd. 1(b). See ante, at 232, 241. The Court bases this conclusion on a letter to the Association from Legal Assistant Fortney which referred to the fifty percent rule while informing the Association of its obligation to register under the Act. See ante, at 232-233, n. 4. The Court apparently concludes from this letter that it was the fifty percent rule which motivated the State to seek registration from the Association. Certainly the imprecise implications of a letter from a Legal Assistant in the Attorney General’s Office do not establish the motive behind the State’s enforcement action. More importantly, the reason for the State's action was expressly alleged in the enforcement complaint: the Association is a charitable organization soliciting funds in Minnesota. See Exhibit F to Fortney Affidavit. Even if the State had been motivated by the narrowing of the religious organization exemption, however, that would not alter the legal basis for enforcement of the statute against appellees or the analysis of appellees’ standing before this Court.
It is not surprising that the Court’s opinion never once mentions this enforcement complaint. That the complaint is pending in the Minnesota *267District Court, and that it relies entirely upon the Association’s status as a “charitable organization” within the meaning of § 309.52, altogether refute the Court’s assertion that the fifty percent “rule was the sole basis for the State’s attempt to compel registration,” and the consequent conclusion that invalidation of the rule will mean that “the Church cannot be required to register and report under the Act.” Ante, at 242. As has already been demonstrated, invalidation of the fifty percent rule will have absolutely no effect on the Association’s obligation to register and report as a charitable organization under the Act. See supra, at 265-266. Indeed, the Court’s decision today will not even require the State to amend its complaint before proceeding with its enforcement action.
Apparently forgetting that our role does not include finding facts, the Court finds itself “compelled]” to conclude that “the Church is indeed a religious organization within the meaning of the Act.” Ante, at 241. The Court’s compulsion to disregard its purely appellate function is caused not by evidence adduced in the District Court, but by the faulty premise which underlies the Court’s entire standing analysis: that “appellants chose to apply § 309.515, subd. 1(b), and its fifty per cent rule as the sole statutory authority requiring the Church to register under the Act.” Ibid. The *268utter error of that premise has already been demonstrated. See supra, at 264-265. But even if one accepts the premise that the State acted because it considered the Association to be a “religious organization” for purposes of the fifty percent rule, that premise cannot properly lead to the conclusion that the Association is in fact such an organization. Factual determinations of that sort are to be made by state courts construing the Minnesota statute, not by attorneys in the Minnesota Attorney General’s office. And if the Court is saying that the Attorney General has “admitted” by its enforcement action that the Association is a “religious organization” within the meaning of the Act, it has ventured into a realm of state evidentiary law in which it has no competence and no business. It is worth noting that even the Court of Appeals did not take such liberties with the record. It held that the “ ‘bare assertion . . . without the production of any evidence . . . is simply not sufficient to sustain [an] assertion that [the Unification Church] is a religious organization.’” 637 F. 2d 562, 570 (CA8 1981) (quoting United States v. Berg, 636 F. 2d 203, 205 (CA8 1980)).
Even more questionable than this finding of fact is the judicial wizardry by which the Court shifts the state-created burden of proof. The Court concludes, without citation to supporting authority, that “a declaration that § 309.515, subd. 1(b)’s fifty percent rule is unconstitutional would put the State to the task of demonstrating that the Unification Church is not a religious organization within the meaning of the Act.” Ante, at 243 (emphasis added). This conclusion directly conflicts with the Minnesota statute, which requires registration and reporting under the Act if the State demonstrates that an organization is “charitable” within the meaning of § 309.52. See supra, at 265-266. It then becomes incumbent on the organization to show that it qualifies for one of the Act’s several exemptions — in this case to show that it is a “religious organization” within the meaning of §309.515, subd. 1(b). The Court cannot change this state regulatory scheme by judicial fiat, and does so only in a transparent attempt to manufacture redressability where none exists. See infra, at 269-271.
See Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 454 U. S. 464, 472 (1981); Watt v. Energy Action Educational Foundation, 454 U. S. 151, 161 (1981); Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U. S. 91, 100 (1979); Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, 438 U. S., at 74, 75, n. 20; Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U. S. 252, 262 (1977); Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 504, 507-508 (1975); Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U. S. 614, 618 (1973).
The Court attempts to finesse this fact by stating: “[A] plaintiff satisfies the redressability requirement when he shows that a favorable decision will relieve a discrete injury to himself. He need not show that a favorable decision will relieve his every injury.” Ante, at 244, n. 15 (emphasis in original). True though this statement may be, appellees have failed to demonstrate that a favorable decision in this Court will relieve any injury. The Court’s decision does not alter the statutuory requirement that’the As*271sociation register under the Act, and expands an exemption from which ap-pellees can benefit only when they prove that the Association is a “religious organization” within the meaning of the Act.
At another point in its opinion, the Court acknowledges:
“Of course, the Church cannot be assured of a continued religious-organization exemption even in the absence of the fifty per cent rule. . . . But that fact by no means detracts from the palpability of [appellees’ injury.]” Ante, at 242 (citation omitted).
I agree that the uncertainty as to whether this decision will benefit ap-pellees does not detract from the “palpability” of their injury. As shown in the text, however, it detracts totally from their ability to demonstrate the essential Art. III requirements of causation and redressability.