Legal Document

520 U.S. 43117 S.Ct. 1055137 L.Ed.2d 170 ARIZONANS FOR OFFICIAL ENGLISH and Robert D. Park, Petitionersv.ARIZONA et al. No. 95-974. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Dec. 4, 1996. Decided March 3, 1997. Syllabus * Maria-Kelly F. Yniguez, an Arizona state employee at time, sued State its Governor, Attorney General, Director Department Administration under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that Constitution Article XXVIII-key provisions which declare English "the official language State,'' require to "act in no other language,'' authorize residents businesses "to bring [state-court] suit[s] enforce th[e] Article''-violated, inter alia, Free Speech Clause First Amendment. Yniguez used both Spanish her work feared XXVIII, if read broadly, would face discharge or discipline she did not refrain from speaking while serving State. She requested injunctive declaratory relief, counsel fees, "all relief deems just proper.'' During early phases suit, General released Opinion expressing his view XXVIII is constitutional that, although it requires expression "official acts'' English, allows government employees use languages facilitate delivery governmental services. The Federal District heard testimony and, among rulings, determined only capacity, was a proper defendant. court, same dismissed because Eleventh Amendment immunity, he had authority against employees, there showing undertaken threatened any action adverse Yniguez; rejected General's interpretation on ground conflicted with measure's plain language; declared fatally overbroad after reading impose sweeping ban than by all officialdom; declined allow courts initial opportunity determine scope XXVIII. Following Governor's announcement appeal, denied request certify pivotal state-law question-the Article's correct construction-to Court. also motion intervene behalf State, 28 §2403(b), contest appeal court's holding unconstitutional. In addition, court newcomers Arizonans for Official Committee (AOE) Chairman sponsors ballot initiative became support constitutionality. day AOE, filed their notices resigned employment accept job private sector. Ninth Circuit then concluded AOE Park met standing requirements III could proceed as party appellants, having successfully obtained dismissal below, reenter party, but present argument, pursuant regarding constitutionality Thereafter, informed Yniguez's resignation suggested lack viable plaintiff, case moot. disagreed, plea nominal damages be into complaint's relief'' clause save case. en banc ultimately affirmed Court's ruling unconstitutional, announced entitled Finding "plain language'' dispositive, noting never conceded unconstitutional construed asserted should be, Appeals limiting construction matter Finally, acknowledged state-court challenge XXVIII's constitutionality, Ruiz v. found litigation cause stay federal proceedings. Held: Because moot have been retained adjudication merits, vacates Circuit's judgment remands directions This expresses Pp. ____-____. (a) Grave doubts exist petitioners pursue appellate review III's case-or-controversy requirement. Standing defend place original defendant demands litigant possess "a direct stake outcome.'' Diamond Charles, 476 54, 62, 106 1697, 1703, 90 48. Petitioners' primary argument-that, proponents, they quasi-legislative interest defending measure sponsored-is dubious are elected legislators, authorized law represent State's interests, see Karcher May, 484 72, 82, 108 388, 395, 98 327. Furthermore, this has identified proponents Article-III-qualified defenders. Cf. Don't Bankrupt Washington Continental Ill. Nat. Bank & Trust Co. Chicago, 460 1077, 103 1762, 76 338. Their assertion representational associational problematic, absent concrete injury confer upon members own right, see, e.g., Food Commercial Workers Brown Group, Inc., 517 ____, 116 1529, 1534-1535, 134 758 (1996), anything citizen-suit provision general, particular, court. Nevertheless, need definitively resolve did, assumes such arguendo order analyze question mootness occasioned originating plaintiff departure employment. See, Burke Barnes, 479 361, 363, 364, 107 734, 93 732, n. (b) longer satisfies requirement, To qualify fit federal-court adjudication, actual controversy must extant stages review, merely time complaint filed. E.g., Preiser Newkirk, 422 401, 95 2330, 2334, 45 272. Although claim outset litigation, public sector sector, where speech governed mooted stated complaint. Boyle Landry, 401 77, 78, 80-81, 91 758, 758-759, 759-760. Contrary ruling, implied damages, approved Arizona, revive case, §1983 actions do lie Will Michigan Dept. Police, 491 58, 71, 109 2304, 2312; permitted participate intervenor, through subject obligation pay damages; cooperation waiving immunity recreate live cf., Johnson, 319 302, 304, 63 1075, 1076. (c) When civil becomes pending established practice system reverse vacate below remand direction dismiss. Munsingwear, 340 36, 39, 71 104, 106-107. disarmed course failure petition certiorari. inquire decide questions presented, consider lower proceed, even though parties prepared concede it. Bender Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 534, 541, 1326, 1331. refused stop when learned mooting event-Yniguez's employment-its unwarranted set aside. Nor saved entry before occurrence event refusal arguable basis seeking review; moreover, renewed certification demonstrate pursuing §2403(b) right occurred. His disclosure warranted disposition, stopped endeavor justified vacation judgment. extraordinary federalism concern next considered lead conclusion vacatur down line equitable solution. (d) Taking account novelty meaning, potential importance conduct Arizona's business, views subject, at-least-partial agreement those sponsors, more respectful consideration given requests seek, certification, authoritative anticipatory sought statute, respect our calls close whether conflict avoidable. well-equipped rule statute's without controlling meaning effect courts. Poe Ullman, 367 497, 526, 81 1752, 1767-1768 (Harlan, J., dissenting). Certification saves energy, resources helps build cooperative judicial federalism. See Lehman Brothers Schein, 416 386, 391, 94 1741, 1744. suggestion, decisions condition precedent concession contended be. Moreover, improperly blended abstention "unique circumstances,'' rather simply novel unsettled question, necessary may employ certification. it, question: What does mean? Once spoken, remaining "greatly simplifie[d].'' Bellotti Baird, 428 132, 151, 96 2857, 2868. 69 F.3d 920, vacated remanded. GINSBURG, delivered opinion unanimous Barnaby W. Zall, Washington, DC, petitioners. J. Pohlman, Phoenix, AZ, respondents. Justice GINSBURG 1 competence legislation, Reetz Bozanich, 397 86-87, 788, 790, 25 68 (1970), nor adjudicate challenges measures impact challenger, Golden Zwickler, 394 103, 110, 89 956, 960-961, 22 113 (1969). Circuit, hand, lost sight these limitations. initiating resolution compatibility 1988 amendment declaring Arizona''-the . functions actions.'' Ariz. Const., Art. §§1(1), 1(2). Participants proceeding benefit Court, expressed diverse opinions amendment. 2 commenced maintained suit individual, class representative. A complaint, voluntarily left 1990 allege seek return post. Her position made prospective held therefore pressed ultimate decision. three-judge panel 1994, divided 1995, adhered panel's position. 3 warrant did. essential elements justiciable merits Appeals. We judgment, express 4 Passed November 8, 1988, margin one percentage point,1 effective December 5 Among key provisions, declares specified exceptions, "shall act language.'' §3(1)(a). enumerated exceptions compliance laws, participation certain educational programs, protection rights criminal defendants crime victims, health safety. Id., §3(2). final provision, grants person residing doing business Article'' "reasonable limitations'' " [t]he Legislature enact.'' §4.2 challenging two days passed. On 10, insurance claims manager Administration's Risk Management Division, Arizona. invoked suit.3 Soon lawsuit commenced, added defendants, individual capacities, Governor Rose Mofford, K. Corbin, Administration, Catherine Eden. brought designation 6 Fluent Spanish, engaged primarily handling medical malpractice daily service public, spoke persons who language, combination able communicate languages. Record, Doc. &Par;8, 13 (Statement Stipulated Facts, Feb. 9, 1989). instruction English,'' §3(1)(a), govern performance "every [did] something.'' ¶10. believed lose sanctions immediately App. ¶19 (Second Amended Complaint). violated Fourteenth Amendments Title VI Civil Rights Act 1964, 78 Stat. 252, §2000d. circumstances.'' 60. 7 All named moved dismiss them.4 absence "none [them] ha[d] [Yniguez] concerning duties [or had] ever told [at work].'' 30, p. 1. further urged application tendered first id., 2.5 8 Trial agreed, combined hearing preliminary injunction.6 Before trial occurred, January 24, 1989, opinion, I89-009, construing explaining why constitutional. 61-76. 9 said "as whole,'' "with portions Constitution'' laws.'' 61. While acts government'' remained free services.'' 62. Construction word "act,'' mean ac[t] government,'' asserted, "would raise serious questions'' equal guarantees legislation. 65-66.7 10 February weeks release Statement reported Mofford's opposition initiative, intention nevertheless, comply XXVIII,'' expectation "State [would] comply'' measure. &Par;35, 39. stipulation confirmed efficient operation [and administration] enhanced permitting citizens proficient English.'' &Par;16, 17. recognized "Yniguez'[s] performing contributes administration State.'' ¶15. referred 1989 ¶46, recounted since passage [Yniguez's] supervisors change cease prior duties,'' ¶48.8 11 April disposed 6, 1990. 730 F.Supp. 309. Prior decision, defendant, accepting immunity. 311. Second Complaint, 23, accordingly Administration. 55.9 12 party. found, like employees. F.Supp., 311-312. laws rules But nothing record, said, showed undertake Yniguez. 313. That Mofford. "ha[d] formally interpreted imposing restrictions continued during 312, indeed three defendants-Mofford well Corbin Eden, supra, __-"ha[d] record continue speak fear retribution.'' 312. Mofford reiterated faced attributable executive branch officer, hence presented genuine controversy. ibid. singled out stipulations "Governor intends "expects XXVIII.'' 36; If proved wrong about breadth concluded, vulnerable pledge Article. 14 Proceeding overbroad. measure, maintained; instead, according imposed officialdom, limited exceptions. 314. adverted confining construction, unpersuasive. observed, "merely advisory,'' binding 315. "More importantly,'' odds Ibid. 15 text room moderate restrained led decline 316. violative Amendments, injunction "she enforcement threat sufficient [such] relief.'' 316-317. 16 Postjudgment motions followed, sparked appeal. 98. XXVIII-to 82. He §2403(b),10 declaration Constitution. Nos. 92, 93. 17 Two appeared judgment: AOE. Invoking Rule 24 Rules Procedure, urge 94-102. unincorporated association, principal sponsor alleged intervention unwillingness Responding AOE/Park motion, wish objection representative, pursuit 94. 18 reservations further. "She won [her] employer'' "obtained relief,'' noted. 114, (Transcript Motion Intervene Alter Amend Judgment, 26, 1990). "goes forward,'' "I guess we do, too,'' but, added, might "best here.'' agreed. 19 1990, postjudgment motions. 130 F.R.D. 410. inappropriate, ruled, light rejection narrow 412. As application, observed addresses ""to agency, thereof party.''' 413 (quoting §2403(b)). description, officers were very defendants-the sole defendants-Yniguez's named. throughout reasoned, "only determine[d] state's sovereign interests best served foregoing appeal.'' 20 Turning movants failed file pleading "setting forth the[ir] defense,'' required 24(c). deficiency critical, said. insurmountable hurdle standing. labor spent promote suffice establish sue tribunal, held. 414-415. member status, voters favored too general meet traditional criteria. 415. 21 satisfied tenably assert practical impairment stemming precedential force nonparticipants issue preclusion. And courts, Thus, precluded "any future [based on] 415-416. II viewed differently. July 19, 1991, 939 F.2d 727, reached conclusions: appellants; however, argument 738-740. retain jurisdiction over decision 740, address certified definitive 23 Concerning AOE's standing, reasoned legislature statute; analogy, maintained, qualified 732-733; (" [W]e hold way might.''). "could reasonable (and possibly well) her'' §4 authorizes 5.11 Having allowed serve "judicial[ly] estoppe[d]'' again appearing 738-739; 740 [H]aving asked district him [the General] cannot now become again.'').12 With choosing neither [the] [n]or [was] party,'' so appear §2403(b). F.2d, 739.13 But, "confers right,'' pendent make [Article XXVIII's] constitutionality.'' 739-740. 1991 development prime another job. apparently 25, September "suggest[ing] hence, moot.'' Suggestion Mootness 90-15546 90-15581 (CA 9), Affidavit Exh. A. 26 One year later, 16, 1992, suggestion. 975 646. adopted large part opposing disposition. 194-204 (Appellee Response Regarding Considerations). [T]he affected provision,'' acknowledged. 647. continued, entitle award damages.'' "not expressly damages,'' noted, "it circumstances.''' 647, 1; __. regard including "implicit denial'' damages. 2. 27 permit clarify positions, There, permission, notice following up months earlier allowing intervene. 647.14 next, cross-appeal explicitly, 2.15 instructions, returned 5, 1992; second 206-208, crossappealed 15, 209.16 May 1994. After June 21, Against Constitutional Tampering (AACT) Thomas Espinosa, AACT, plaintiffs-appellees. 14; 1217, 1223-1224 (1994) (amended Jan. 17, 1995). AACT opponent 1224. late intervention, noted d[id] rely [AACT's] party.'' pre-argument participants, view, sufficed determination merits. 29 superintended remanded directing 1217 Despite Appeals' denial status responsible noted: "The waived defense 1243. agreed rehear banc, 53 1084 (1995), October 6-to-5 vote, reinstated minor alterations. 920. 30 Adopting prohibit 31 ""the political subdivisions duties, extent foreign contained §3(2) XXVIII.''' F.3d, 928 314). 32 929, 929-931. additional reason grant stated: XXVIII] asserts properly be.'' 931, 14.17 pointed CV92-19603 (Sup.Ct., Maricopa Cty., 1994). Ruiz, instance "dispos[ed] paragraphs'' "d[id] provision].'' 931.18 33 scope, condemned manifestly overbroad, trenching untenably officials 931-948. For prevailing action, announced, "entitled 949. remand, followed awarded $1.00 211. 34 petitioned writ certiorari Circuit.19 They raised questions: (1) Does violate "declaring requiring perform acts''?; (2) Do disregard [State's] English? granted brief threshold matters parties, continuing satisfaction 212. 35 III, §2, confines "Cases'' "Controversies.'' aspect Northeastern Fla. Chapter, Associated Gen. Contractors America Jacksonville, 508 656, 663-664, 2297, 2301-2302, 124 586 (1993) (standing sue); 56, 1700, 48 (1986) appeal). litigate, show, foremost, "an invasion legally protected interest'' "concrete particularized'' ""actual imminent.''' Lujan Defenders Wildlife, 504 555, 560, 112 2130, 2136, 119 351 (1992) Whitmore Arkansas, 495 149, 155, 110 1717, 1722-1723, 135 (1990)). An shared generally will do. U.S., 573-576, S.Ct., 2143-2154. less sue, Diamond, 1703 Sierra Club Morton, 405 92 1361, 1369, 636 (1972) (internal quotation marks omitted)). 36 instance. 1703. "is placed hands "concerned bystanders,''' seize "vehicle vindication value interests.''' (citation omitted). intervenor step shoes unless independently "fulfills III.'' 68, 1706-1707. 37 granting called briefing consonant Constitution, Petitioners argue sponsored. stress funds effort expended achieve adoption legislators statute interests. 327 (1987).20 members, representatives, aware appointing agents people defend, lieu officials, initiatives defenders advocated. 338 (1983) (summarily dismissing, proponent unconstitutional). 38 association right. 1534-1535; Hunt Apple Advertising Comm'n, 432 333, 343, 97 2434, 2441, 383 (1977). requisite apparent. nonparties bound slim effect, __, 11,21 entirely invoke §4, citizen whatever authorized. discern flowing provision-which suits court-that 39 thus grave review. issue. Rather, follow path taken inquire, matter, still pursue. 736, 737, (1987) (leaving unresolved congressional moot). purposes inquiry, assume, arguendo, tribunal. 366, 737 (STEVENS, dissenting) (Court assumed issue). remains determining former latter, goes Bancorp Mortgage Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 18, 20-22, 115 389-390, 233 (1994). IV 40 filed.'' 272 (1975) Steffel Thompson, 415 452, 459, 1209, 1216, 505 (1974)) 1988. vitality I89-009. leave "if reasonably fair services'' public. 74; __-__, __-__; Marston's Inc. Roman Catholic Church 132 90, 94, 644 P.2d 244, 248 (1982) ("Attorney advisory mean, good faith until spoken.''). take At point, lacked vital relief. 759-760, 696 (1971) (prospective plaintiffs show challenged adversely plaintiff's conduct). 41 mootness,22 resisted, proposed method saving __-__.23 It "may response suggestion possibility [she] ibid.; 197-200 stage imagined. rested §1983. 3. capacity whom ran, answerable 948-949 (declaring §1983'' damages''). held, 2312, 105 (1989). overcome nonexistent. barrier not, supposed, waive. stopper creates remedy State.24 43 revised ruling. recapitulate, mootness, representative accorded "right [under §2403(b)] contingent Park's bringing 740; Maine Taylor, 477 131, 136-137, 2440, 2446-2447, (State's appellants). participants defendants-appellants. "cannot again.'' 740. propriety exclusion note lapse accounting decision: explain how arrived designated nonparty 44 True, took steps prescribed: notice, ____; 948-949. earlier, emphatic place: gave lawsuit. 738-740.25 advancing between home courts' friendly feigned 1076, 87 L.Ed. 1413 (1943) (absent adversary parties,'' safely judgment''). clear extracted prayer solely avoid otherwise bore inspection. Fox Board Trustees Univ. N.Y., 135, 141-142 (C.A.2 1994) (rejecting proffered years began plaintiffs' specifically monetary relief). inspection, perceived genuinely case.26 46 dismiss.'' 106, (1950). Vacatur "clears relitigation'' eliminating loser 40, 107. occurs happenstance-circumstances parties-or, relevant here, "unilateral prevailed court.'' Co., 390; cf. 29, 393 ("mootness settlement [ordinarily] justify review''). 47 explained, changed circumstances-her sector-mooted complaint.27 turn judgments below. urges ought occur here. maintains acquiesced event, upset entered occurred appealed. Brief Respondent 23-25. argues effectively dispositions 24-25; Amicus Curiae 10-11, (citing (1986)).28 agree manner suggested. 49 Park. Even essentially search pleadings core adjudicatory authority-to present, consider, also, proceed. explained 501 (1986): 50 [E]very special "satisfy itself jurisdiction, review,' Mitchell Maurer, 293 237, 244 [55 162, 165, 79 338] (1934). Juidice Vail, 430 327, 331-332 [97 1211, 1215-1216, 51 376] (1977) (standing). "And discloses defect, contention -[When court] lack[s] purpose correcting error entertaining suit.' Corrick, 298 435, 440 [56 829, 831-832, 80 1263] (1936) (footnotes omitted).'' Bender, 1331 (brackets original). Iron Arrow Honor Soc. Heckler, 464 67, 72-73, 104 373, 375-376, 58 (per curiam) (vacating ruled short, "make disposition whole justice require.'' 390 internal came attention, aside 52 stresses date event-her 1990-was some 2&1/2 seeks preserve. Therefore, contends, remain untouched. promptly known independent total demolition First, repeated failed, asked, intervene, joined post-judgment proceedings.'' 93, had, minimum, secured Congress, "on process 54 already proceedings thereafter. tell employ. 23. fact disclosed suggested, rejected. point order, explained. Such midstream endeavor, premised unconstitutionality, path-clearing decree. 55 current compelling litigation. Respondents ("It certainly strange doctrine obtain favorable voluntary [that] moot[s] dispute, [benefit the] judgment.''). agree. "exceptional circumstances'' abound 393, us conclude V 56 generally, most prominently, characteristically pause ask: Is really necessary?29 question. 1767-1768, 989 (1961) (HARLAN, [N]ormally Constitutionality courts.''); Rescue Army Municipal Los Angeles, 331 549, 573-574, 67 1409, 1421-1423, 1666 (1947); Shapiro, Jurisdiction Discretion, 60 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 543, 580-585 (1985). 57 addition releasing judgment; specifically, process, new nn. 18. today covers territory once dominated deferral device "Pullman abstention,'' generative Railroad Comm'n Tex. Pullman 312 496, 61 643, 85 971 (1941). Designed deciding antecedent issues, mechanism remitted issues. prove dispositive Attractive theory equipped authoritatively them, protracted expensive practice, entailed full round resumption 17A C. Wright, Miller, E. Cooper, Practice Procedure §§4242, 4243 (2d ed.1988 Supp.1996). 59 procedure, contrast, put directly highest reducing delay, cutting cost, increasing assurance gaining response. Note, Courts-Certification Facial Invalidation: Return Federalism, New Eng. L.Rev. 217 (1990). Most procedures. Miller §4248. permits appeals Both invite aid "plain,'' 315-316, 928-931.30 price [plaintiff Yniguez] 930; 14. pendency similar system, 931; (describing litigation). cautious approach order. Through answers "time, hel[p] federalism.'' 1744, 215 (1974); 148, 2866-2867, 844 (1976) (to [i]t susceptible substantially modify statute''). true, 930, certifying Virginia American Booksellers Assn., 383, 636, 782 (1988), 393-396, 643-645. 62 fairly construction. 316 Houston Hill, 482 451, 467, 2502, 2512-2513, 398 (1987)); 930. puzzling advanced oral 1996, petitioners' interpretation.'' Tr. Oral Arg. 6; (in [constitutional] grounds.''). "explanations initiative's confused self-contradictory,'' 928, 12, wavered statements position, (AOE "protect statutory employees''), 32-39 (Article regulates "language job''), ("AOE XXVIII''). understood themselves least "partially endorsed reading.'' 12. Given plus merited received 64 confronting "cardinal principle'': "will ascertain possible'' contain within bounds. Ashwander TVA, 297 288, 348, 466, 483-484, 688 (BRANDEIS, concurring); Ellis Railway, Airline Steamship Clerks, 466 444, 1883, 1890, (1984); Califano Yamasaki, 442 682, 692-693, 99 2545, 2553-2554, 176 (1979); Army, 568-569, 1419-1420. interpreting statutes, similarly apply cardinal principle. Knoell Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, 185 546, 548, 917 689, 691 (1996) Ashwander). 65 Warnings premature bear heightened attention invalidate law, tribunal risks friction-generating endeavors construe yet reviewed 1421-1423. "Speculation particularly gratuitous stand willing Brockett Spokane Arcades, 472 491, 510, 2794, 2805, 86 (1985) (O'CONNOR, concurring). 66 Blending "no unique circumstances militating favor certification.'' 931. Novel, avail procedures.31 Those procedures entail delays, expense, procedural complexity attend decisions. advantage available simplif[y]'' Bellotti, complex. avoided eight ago, accepted General. say what means. Symington, hesitation. stayed greatly simplified. *** reasons stated, vacated, 70 ordered. SAPPSAPPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT ARTICLE XXVIII.ENGLISH AS LANGUAGE 72 §1.English applicability 73 Section 1.(1) 74 ballot, schools actions. 75 (3)(a) applies to: (i) legislative, branches government[,] 77 (ii) subdivisions, departments, agencies, organizations, instrumentalities local governments municipalities, (iii) ordinances, rules, orders, programs policies[,] (iv) business. Article, phrase "This State'' shall include every entity, person, item described Section, appropriate circumstances. §2.Requiring preserve, protect enhance 82 2.This role 83 §3.Prohibiting using English; 84 3.(1) Except provided Subsection (2): language. No entity decree policy English. document valid, enforceable 88 circumstances: assist students giving provide rapid possible transition laws. teach student curriculum. (e) victims crime. §4.Enforcement; 4.A resides enact limitations subsection. syllabus constitutes Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber Lumber 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 499 (1906). opposed "sadly misdirected,'' 38, drew affirmative votes 50.5% casting ballots election, 924 (C.A.9 titled "English Language,'' appendix opinion. Derived §1 1871, Rev. §1979, provides part: "Civil deprivation rights. "Every who, color ordinance, regulation, custom, usage, , subjects, causes subjected, rights, privileges, immunities liable injured equity, redress.'' Under represents Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann. §41-193(A)(3) (1992). Throughout proceedings, represented department supervision. §41-192(A). "answer supreme States, tribal involved [Arizona law] determinative appears intermediate state.'' §12-1861 temporary restraining finding "imminent danger imposition sanctions'' her. Specifically addressing customer inquiries complaints involving services,'' elaborated: "All documents translation services accommodating communications permissible, services, specific regulation. Communications principles.'' 74. Supplementing pleas want controversy, I89-009 "puts rest penalized work.'' 51, Complaint Senator Jaime Gutierrez. Gutierrez interfered freely persons, Senate district, 58-59. Gutierrez's legislative officials. 309, 311 (D.Ariz.1990). participant provides: "In wherein affecting drawn attorney presentation evidence, evidence admissible shall, applicable liabilities costs facts relating remarkable passage, addressed impediment bring, judiciary. 735-736. questioned wisdom "in academic literature,'' "by courts,'' "several justices'' "coordinate coequal law.'' 736 (footnote "there valid bind single judge-which judge subsequent action.'' 736-737. However, "are inapplicable appeals.'' 737. ASARCO Kadish, 490 605, 617, 2037, 2045, (1989) ("state authority, exclusive render interpretations law''); Lockhart Fretwell, 506 838, 845-846, 122 180 (THOMAS, concurring) (Supremacy rulings law). "address 738. assumed, "whenever [to satisfy] 733, 4. 137, 2446, (intervening unconstitutional); ("a 10. Notice Appeal, targeted 150-151. indicated, positioned 150. suggestions damages: "whose moot'' intervene; herself suitor others refrained English-only reliance suit. 647-648. later intervened substitute relied 1993, nearly $100,000 attorney's fees. 127. 1993. 128. reach defendants' 924, 2, 927. contrasted statute. Booksellers, statute] included several four five defeat instance, CA-CV 94-0235, 1996 WL 309512, ___ P.2d. ____ (Ariz.App., 11, 1996). evident concern, abstain [XXVIII]'s system.'' *4, Ariz., P.2d, ____. "Comity,'' "typically finds deference uniformity discourage forum shopping, decided defer forgoing analysis. Supplemental oppose Appearance Form, Petition reverses reversal fees 16. INS Chadha, 462 919, 939-940, 2764, 2773, 2778-2779, 317 (INS appealed one-House veto provision; Congress validity Houses, resolution, lawsuit). stare decisis distinctly limited. did] foreclose [AOE] arising 410, frame: personal commencement (standing) existence (mootness).''' Parole Geraghty, 445 397, 100 1202, (1980) Monaghan, Adjudication: Who When, Yale L.J. 1363, 1384 (1973)). inform employment, docketed. 7. notified 187. offered laconic explanation lapse: "legal research moot''; second, knew "agreed proceed.'' 196, unsatisfactory. duty tribunal's "without '' mootness. License Comm'rs Tiverton Pastore, 469 238, 240, 685, 686, 618 bearing withhold based counsels' treated Alaska S.S. 253 113, 116, 448, 448-449, 808 (1920); R. Stern, Gressman, S. Geller, 721-722 (7th ed.1993). themselves, amenable liability relates duties. Hafer Melo, 502 25-31, 358, 361-365, 301 (1991). solution surfaced identify whose predicate retrospective hardly surprising, participated 1, associated unwilling Ex parte Young, 209 123, 441, 714 (1908). 21-22. doctrine, awards. Edelman Jordan, 651, 664, 1347, 1356, 662 (1974). 2403(b) terms subjects costs'' "for (emphasis added). Endeavoring posited "controversies parties.'' Reply 18-19. Tellingly, none controversies (AACT), State). bears repetition class. __; 404, 2335, (MARSHALL, (mootness unavoidable plaintiff-respondent's class); Sosna Iowa, 419 397-403, 553, 556-559, 532 (recognizing exception doctrine). Designated respondent invited answering petition. much plain: State-aligned defended constitutionality-did certiorari; prevail recoup ordered phrasing borrowed Traynor, Conflict Really Necessary?, Texas 657 (1959). Huggins Isenbarger, 798 203, 207-210 (C.A.7 1986) (Easterbrook, (reasoned consideration; hesitate [a State's] Executive Branch understand law''). "which cause,'' precedent'' apparent

Classification Label: 8