`
`Statement of THOMAS, J.
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
`
`1
`
`
`
`_________________
`No. 14A493
`_________________
`MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, ET AL., v.
`
`ANGEL LOPEZ-VALENZUELA, ET AL.
`
`
`ON APPLICATION FOR STAY
`[November 13, 2014]
`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
`
`
`SCALIA joins, respecting the denial of the application for a
`
`stay.
`Petitioner asks us to stay a judgment of the United
`
`States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holding
`unconstitutional an amendment to the Arizona Constitu-
`tion 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 (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 (1998);
`United States v. Gainey, 380 U. S. 63, 65 (1965). States
`deserve no less consideration. See Janklow v. Planned
`Parenthood, Sioux Falls Clinic, 517 U. S. 1174, 1177
`(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 re-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` MARICOPA COUNTY v. LOPEZ-VALENZUELA
`
`Statement of THOMAS, J.
`
`view”). Indeed, we often review decisions striking down
`state laws, even in the absence of a disagreement among
`lower courts. See, e.g., Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U. S.
`___ (2013); Cook v. Gralike, 531 U. S. 510 (2001); Saenz v.
`
`Roe, 526 U. S. 489 (1999); Renne v. Geary, 501 U. S. 312
`(1991); Massachusetts v. Oakes, 491 U. S. 576 (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, ante, p. ___; Smith v. Bishop, ante, p. ___;
`Rainey v. Bostic, ante, p. ___; Walker v. Wolf, ante, p. ___;
`
`see also Otter v. Latta, ante, p. ___ (denying a stay); Par-
`nell v. Hamby, ante, p. ___ (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 consti-
`tutional amendment.
`
`Of course, the Court has yet to act on a petition for a
`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.
`
`2