Case Name: MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, et al., v. Angel LOPEZ-VALENZUELA, et al.
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-11-13
Citations: 135 S. Ct. 428
Docket Number: No. 14A493.
Parties: MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, et al.,
v.
Angel LOPEZ-VALENZUELA, et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Supreme Court Reporter
Volume: 135
Pages: 428–428

Head Matter:
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, et al.,
v.
Angel LOPEZ-VALENZUELA, et al.
No. 14A493.
Supreme Court of the United States
Nov. 13, 2014.
Opinion

Opinion:
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.