现代宪法回避理论是在法律有多种解释可能时,选择合宪性解释,放弃有违宪可能的解释,避免对法律的合宪性进行质疑。作为一种司法克制方法,宪法回避有助于保护司法独立,避免司法卷入政治漩涡或社会分歧,得到美国司法界的肯定。但在具体适用过程中,法院缺乏明确的启动标准,用或不用完全由法官个人自由裁量;此外,法院表面上为了回避宪法裁判,实际上有可能借“解释”法律之名“修改”法律,甚或重新解释宪法,破坏了三权分立,侵犯了立法权和行政权,遭致非议。因此,正确适用宪法回避理论,应当回归其本来面目,恪守宪法回避理论的适用界限,真正将其作为一种司法克制的方法,而非能动司法的外衣。 The modern theory of constitutional avoidance is that when there are many legal interpretations possible, the author chooses constitutional interpretation and gives up the possibility of unconstitutionality and avoids questioning the constitutionality of law. As a kind of judicial restraint method, the constitutional avoidance helps to protect judicial independence and avoid the judicial involvement in politics or social disagreement, which is affirmed by American judiciary. However, in the process of concrete application, the court lacks a definite starting standard and may or may not be entirely discretionary by judges. In addition, on the surface, in order to evade the constitutional referendum, the court may in fact amend the “name of law” "Law, or even reinterpret the constitution, undermining the separation of the three powers, violating the legislative and executive power, was criticized. Therefore, the correct application of the theory of constitutional avoidance should return to its true features and abide by the applicable boundaries of the theory of constitutional avoidance, as a genuine method of judicial restraint, rather than a judicial coat.