throbber
Cite as: 574 U. S. ____ (2014)
`
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket