Arizonans for Official English and Robert D. Park v. Arizona et al. (520 U.S. 43)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided March 3, 1997 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 520 U.S. 43 · 117 S. Ct. 1055
- Decided
- March 3, 1997
- Term
- October Term 1996
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Ginsburg
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court. Federal courts lack competence to rule definitively on the meaning of state legislation, see, e. g., Reetz v. Bozanich, 397 U. S. 82, 86-87 (1970), nor may they adjudicate challenges to state measures absent a showing of actual impact on the challenger, see, e. g., Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U. S. 103, 110 (1969). The Ninth Circuit, in the case at hand, lost sight of these limitations. The initiating plaintiff, Maria-Kelly F. Yniguez, sought federal-court resolution of a novel question: the compatibility with the Federal Constitution of a 1988 amendment to Arizona’s Constitution declaring English “the official language of the State of Arizona” — “the language of . . . all government functions and actions.” Ariz. Const., Art. XXVIII, §§ 1(1), 1(2). Participants in the federal litigation, proceeding without benefit of the views of the Arizona Supreme Court, expressed diverse opinions on the meaning of the amendment. Yniguez commenced and maintained her suit as an individual, not as a class representative. A state employee at the time she filed her complaint, Yniguez voluntarily left the State’s employ in 1990 and did not allege she would seek to return to a public post. Her departure for a position in the private sector made her claim for prospective relief moot. Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit held that a plea for nominal…
Excerpt of a 66,660-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.