Davis v. Guam, No. 13-15199 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, a Guam resident who is not eligible to register to vote because he is not a Native Inhabitant, filed suit alleging that Guam's Native Inhabitant classification is an unlawful proxy for race. At issue was whether plaintiff had standing to challenge the classification and whether his claims are ripe. The court concluded that plaintiff has Article III standing where his challenge to Guam's registration restriction asserts a judicially cognizable injury that would be prevented or redressed if the district court were to grant his requested relief; the claim is ripe because plaintiff alleges he is currently subject to unlawful unequal treatment in the ongoing registration process; and, therefore, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s dismissal, on standing and ripeness grounds, of an action brought by a resident of Guam who is not eligible to vote in a plebiscite concerning Guam’s future political relationship with the United States because he is not a Native Inhabitant. Plaintiff alleged that Guam’s Native Inhabitant classification is an unlawful proxy for race. Plaintiff sought a declaration that limiting registration to Native Inhabitants is unlawful, and an injunction against using any registry other than Guam’s general voter registry in determining who is eligible to register for, and vote in, the plebiscite. The panel held that plaintiff’s challenge to Guam’s registration restriction asserted a judicially cognizable injury that would be prevented or redressed if the district court were to grant his requested relief. Plaintiff therefore had Article III standing to pursue his challenge to Guam’s alleged race- based registration classification. The panel further held that the claim was ripe because plaintiff alleged he was currently subjected to unlawful unequal treatment in the ongoing registration process. The panel held that because plaintiff did not argue on appeal that the district court erred by dismissing his claim DAVIS V. GUAM 3 against Leonardo Rapadas, the Attorney General of Guam, any claim of error was waived. Dissenting, Judge N.R. Smith stated that given the speculative and remote course of events that stood between plaintiff and his contemplated injury, the matter was not ripe for adjudication, and the district court correctly dismissed plaintiff’s complaint.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.