MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, ET AL.,
v.
ANGEL LOPEZ-VALENZUELA, ET AL.

U.S. | 2014-11-13
No. 14A493.
135 S. Ct. 428 Supreme Court of the United States (2014) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 190 L. Ed. 2d 385
Cited by 8 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

The Supreme Court denied Arizona's application for a stay of a Ninth Circuit decision invalidating a state constitutional amendment that Arizona voters had approved in a referendum. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, issued a statement criticizing the denial and arguing that the Court should have granted certiorari to review the lower court's decision striking down state law, noting the Court's historical practice of reviewing such cases and expressing concern about recent inconsistency in this regard.

Headnotes

[1] An application for a stay of a lower court's judgment is denied when there is no reasonable probability that four Justices will grant certiorari.

[2] There is a strong presumption in favor of granting writs of certiorari to review decisions holding federal statutes unconstitutional.

Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court

The application for stay presented to Justice KENNEDY and by him referred to the Court is denied. The order heretofore entered by Justice KENNEDY is vacated.

Statement of Justice THOMAS, with whom Justice SCALIAjoins, respecting the denial of the application for a stay.

Petitioner asks us to stay a judgment of the United States Court Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holding unconstitutional an amendment to the Arizona Constitution that the State's citizens approved overwhelmingly in a referendum eight years ago. I join my colleagues in denying this application only because there appears to be no "reasonable probability that four Justices will consider the issue sufficiently meritorious to grant certiorari." Hollingsworth v. Perry,558 U.S. 183, 190, 130 S.Ct. 705, 175 L.Ed.2d 657 (2010)(per curiam). That is unfortunate.

We have recognized a strong presumption in favor of granting writs of certiorari to review decisions of lower courts holding federal statutes unconstitutional. See United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 327, 118 S.Ct. 2028, 141 L.Ed.2d 314 (1998); United States v. Gainey, 380 U.S. 63, 65, 85 S.Ct. 754, 13 L.Ed.2d 658 (1965). States deserve no less consideration. See Janklow v. Planned Parenthood, Sioux Falls Clinic, 517 U.S. 1174, 1177, 116 S.Ct. 1582, 134 L.Ed.2d 679 (1996)(SCALIA, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) ("This decision is questionable enough that we should, since the invalidation of state law is at issue, accord review"). Indeed, we often review decision striking down state laws, even in the absence of a disagreement among lower courts. See, e.g., Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 2652, 186 L.Ed.2d 768 (2013); Cook v. Gralike, 531 U.S. 510, 121 S.Ct. 1029, 149 L.Ed.2d 44 (2001); Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 119 S.Ct. 1518, 143 L.Ed.2d 689 (1999); Renne v. Geary, 501 U.S. 312, 111 S.Ct. 2331, 115 L.Ed.2d 288 (1991); Massachusetts v. Oakes, 491 U.S. 576, 109 S.Ct. 2633, 105 L.Ed.2d 493 (1989). But for reasons that escape me, we have not done so with any consistency, especially in recent months. See, e.g., Herbert v. Kitchen, --- U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 265, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2014); Smith v. Bishop, --- U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 271, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2014); Rainey v. Bostic, --- U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 286, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2014); Walker v. Wolf, --- U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 316, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2014); see also Otter v. Latta, --- U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 345, ---L.Ed.2d ---- (2014)(denying a stay); Parnell v. Hamby, --- U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 399, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2014)(same). At the very least, we owe the people of Arizona the respect of our review before we let stand a decision facially invalidating a state constitutional amendment.

Of course, the Court has yet to act on a petition for writ of certiorari in this matter, and I hope my prediction about whether that petition will be granted proves wrong. Our recent practice, however, gives me little reason to be optimistic.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Strange v. Cari D. Searcy, 135 S. Ct. 940 (U.S. 2015)
    …e past few months, the Court has repeatedly denied stays of lower court judgments enjoining the enforcement of state laws on questionable constitutional grounds. See, e.g.,Maricopa County v. Lopez-Valenzuela,574 U.S. ----, ----, 135 S.Ct. 428, 428, 190 L.Ed.2d 385 (2014)(THOMAS, J., joined by SCALIA, J., respecting denial of application for stay) (collecting cases). It has similarly declined to grant certiorari to review such judgments without any regard for the people who approved those laws in popular refe…
  • Cnty. of Maricopa v. Lopez-Valenzuela, 135 S. Ct. 2046 (U.S. 2015)
    …stay application, I noted the unfortunate reality that there "appeare[d] to be no reasonable probability that four Justices [would] consider the issue sufficiently meritorious to grant certiorari." Maricopa County v. Lopez-Valenzuela,574 U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 428, ----, 190 L.Ed.2d 385 (2014)(internal quotation marks omitted). Though I had hoped my prediction would prove wrong, today's denial confirms that there was "little reason to be optimistic." Id.,at ----, 135 S.Ct., at ----. It is disheartening tha…

Authorities Cited (17 total)

View all 17 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw