Court Opinion

ID: 9577267
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:33:31.770825+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:16.836171
License: Public Domain

LOCKWOOD, Justice
(dissenting) :
I dissent. Although I feel it is a grave matter to declare unconstitutional laws existing in Arizona in the commercial field for many years, both the Constitutions of the United States and of the State óf Arizona declare that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and an interpretation of the Supreme Court of the United States is therefore binding on all of the states. I therefqre feel it is a still graver matter to declare invalid the law as announced by the United States Supreme Court.
It is my opinion that merely for the expediency of upholding state laws which we feel have been considered constitutional and valid before a recent opinion of the United States Supreme Court declaring them otherwise, we have no right .to question the authority of that Court when the matter has been considered by more than a quorum of that Court and has been decided by a majority thereof. That is a matter strictly within the- jurisdiction of the Supreme Court itself.
*513Neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has itself determined by statute or rule what constitutes a “majority of the Court” for the purpose of making its decisions binding generally, although each has declared six members to constitute a “quorum”. All of the citations of the majority opinion here refer to decisions of an equally divided court which, of course, have no binding effect except on the particular case involved. None of them, so far as the Supreme Court is concerned, refer to an unequally divided court which constitutes a quorum. Those cases which hold there must be a majority of a court deal with specific statutory or constitutional provisions of states, or federal statutes applying to inferior tribunals.
The United States Supreme Court has pointedly ignored resolution of the question.
I cannot agree that this Court has the right to “be convinced” or “guess” what the two judges who did not participate in Fuentes v. Shevin, supra, would do if they had participated or if they should be presented a similar question in the future.
For the foregoing reasons, I dissent.