Those seem like two separate questions

Buddy Caldwell won't submit an opinion on the constitutionality of the "kill the lawsuit" act because a court already says it doesn't kill the lawsuit.

The court had asked the parties to file briefs about the constitutionality of the law being applied retroactively to the lawsuit filed by the authority last year, but Caldwell's office, through contract attorney E. Wade Shows, says the constitutional issues are a moot point now that the judge determined the law does not apply to the levee authority.

Still the retro-activity question seems relevant.  Because the Legislature passed a bill while stating it was intended as an ex post facto measure, it might be a good idea to have a court establish that they can't actually do that.. in case they happen to write a bill that actually works next time.

Also, if this law, which is now on the books, doesn't apply to the levee authority then, who does it apply to?  And is it a good idea to continue to have such a law?