Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf
Page Number: 44

Cite as:  594 U. S. ____ (2021) 

1 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

Nos. 19–1257 and 19–1258 
_________________ 

MARK BRNOVICH, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 
ARIZONA, ET AL., PETITIONERS 
v. 
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, ET AL. 

19–1257 

ARIZONA REPUBLICAN PARTY, ET AL., 
PETITIONERS 
v. 
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, ET AL. 

19–1258 

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

[July 1, 2021] 

  JUSTICE  GORSUCH,  with  whom  JUSTICE  THOMAS  joins, 
concurring. 
  I join the Court’s opinion in full, but flag one thing it does 
not decide.  Our cases have assumed—without deciding—
that  the  Voting  Rights  Act  of  1965  furnishes  an  implied 
cause of action under §2.  See Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U. S. 
55,  60,  and  n. 8  (1980)  (plurality  opinion).    Lower  courts 
have treated this as an open question.  E.g., Washington v. 
Finlay,  664  F. 2d  913, 926  (CA4  1981).   Because  no  party 
argues  that the  plaintiffs  lack  a cause  of  action  here,  and 
because the existence (or not) of a cause of action does not 
go to a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, see Reyes Mata 
v. Lynch, 576 U. S. 143, 150 (2015), this Court need not and 
does not address that issue today.