Cnty. of Maricopa v. Lopez-Valenzuela
| Decision Date | 01 June 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 14-825.,14-825. |
| Parties | COUNTY OF MARICOPA, ARIZONA, et al. v. Angel LOPEZ-VALENZUELA, et al. |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice ALITO dissents.
The Court's refusal to hear this case shows insufficient respect to the State of Arizona, its voters, and its Constitution. And it suggests to the lower courts that they have free rein to strike down state laws on the basis of dubious constitutional analysis. I respectfully dissent.
In 2006, Arizona voters amended their State Constitution to render ineligible for bail those individuals charged with "serious felony offenses" who have "entered or remained in the United States illegally and if the proof is evident or the presumption great as to the present charge." Ariz. Const., Art. II, § 22(A)(4). A divided en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held this provision unconstitutional under two theories based on the "substantive component of the Due Process Clause." Lopez-Valenzuela v. Arpaio, 770 F.3d 772, 775 (2014). It first reasoned that the amendment implicates a fundamental interest "`in liberty'" and is not narrowly tailored to serve Arizona's interest in ensuring that persons accused of crimes are available for trial. Id., at 780-786. Second, the court held that the amendment "violate[s] substantive due process by imposing punishment before trial." Id., at 791.
Shortly after that decision, Arizona sought a stay of the judgment from this Court. In a statement respecting denial of the stay application, I noted the unfortunate reality that there "appeare[d] to be no reasonable probability that four Justices [would] consider the issue sufficiently meritorious to grant certiorari." Maricopa County v. Lopez-Valenzuela, 574 U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct. 428, ___, 190 L.Ed.2d 385 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Though I had hoped my prediction would prove wrong, today's denial confirms that there was "little reason to be optimistic." Id., at ___, 135 S.Ct., at ___.
It is disheartening that there are not four Members of this Court who would even review the decision below. As I previously explained, States deserve our careful consideration when lower courts invalidate their constitutional provisions. Id., at ___, 135 S.Ct., at ___. After all, that is the approach we take when lower courts hold federal statutes unconstitutional. See, e.g., Department of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads, 573 U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 2865, 189 L.Ed.2d 805 (2014) (). In fact, Congress historically required this Court to review any decision of a federal court of appeals holding that a state statute violated the Federal Constitution. 28 U.S.C. § 1254(2) (1982 ed.). It was not until 1988 that Congress eliminated that mandatory jurisdiction and gave this Court discretion to review such cases by writ of certiorari. See Pub. Law 100-352, § 2, 102 Stat. 662. In my view, that discretion should be exercised with a strong dose of respect for state laws. In exercising that discretion, we should show at least as much respect for state laws as we show for federal laws.
Our indifference to cases such as this one will only embolden the lower courts to reject state laws on questionable constitutional grounds. This Court once emphasized the need for judicial restraint when asked to review the constitutionality of state laws. See, e.g., Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U.S. 726, 729, 83 S.Ct. 1028, 10 L.Ed.2d 93 (1963) (); West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379, 391, 57 S.Ct. 578, 81 S.Ct. 703 (1937) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial