Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona

No. 95-974 (U.S. Mar. 3, 1997) ; Clearinghouse Number: 52194

Description

Finding That Plaintiff’s Claim Was Moot, Supreme Court Vacates Order Invalidating Arizona Constitutional Amendment Declaring English the State’s Official Language

Abstract

The Supreme Court has vacated the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and remanded with directions to dismiss this action challenging an amendment to Arizona’s state constitution that declared English the "official language of the state" and required the state to "act in English and in no other language." Plaintiff, an Arizona state employee who used both English and Spanish in her work, alleged that the challenged amendment violated the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment. Finding that the amendment imposed a sweeping ban on the use of any language other than English by all of Arizona officialdom, the district court declared the amendment fatally overbroad. Following the governor’s announcement that she would not appeal the district court’s decision, the district court denied the state attorney general’s request to certify the state law question to the state supreme court and to intervene on behalf of the state. The court also denied the motion of Arizonans for Official English (AOE), the organization that has sponsored the ballot initiative that resulted in the amendment, to intervene. The attorney general and AOE appealed. Subsequently, plaintiff resigned her position in state government, and the attorney general suggested that the case was moot for lack of a viable plaintiff. Disagreeing and affirming the district court’s judgment, the court of appeals found that a plea for nominal damages could be read into the complaint’s "all other relief" clause to save the case. Reversing, the Supreme Court held that the case was moot and should not have been retained for adjudication on the merits. The Court held that plaintiff’s implied plea for nominal damages could not revive the case, as section 1983 actions do not lie against a state. The Court also expressed its doubt as to AOE’s standing to appeal, noting that it was not authorized by state law to represent state interests. Finally, the Court noted that, because of the novelty of the question and its potential importance to the conduct of state business, more respectful consideration should have been given to the attorney general’s requests to seek, through certification, an authoritative construction of the amendment from the state’s supreme court.

Additional Information

Docket Date
1997-03-03 00:00:00+00:00

Files

Filed under: