Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/150orig_3e04.pdf
Page Number: 2

2 

ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

U. S.  794,  797  (1976)  (per  curiam)  (internal  quotation 
marks omitted), and its “structur[e] . . . as an appellate tri-
bunal,” Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemicals Corp., 401 U. S. 493, 
498 (1971).  But the Court has failed to provide any analysis 
of  the  Constitution’s  text  to  justify  our  discretionary 
approach.

Although  I  have  applied  this  Court’s  precedents  in  the 
past,  see  Wyoming  v.  Oklahoma,  502  U. S.  437,  474,  n. 
(1992)  (dissenting  opinion),  I  have  since  come  to  question
those  decisions,  see  Nebraska,  supra,  at  ___  (dissenting
opinion) (slip op., at 3).  Arizona invites us to reconsider our 
discretionary  approach,  and  I  would  do  so.    I  respectfully
dissent from the denial of leave to file a complaint.