Lopez-Valenzuela v. County of Maricopa, No. 11-16487 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs filed a class action challenging the constitutionality of Arizona's Proposition 100. Proposition 100 commands that Arizona state courts could not set bail for serious felony offenses as prescribed by the legislature if the person charged has entered or remained in the United States illegally and if the proof was evident or the presumption great as to the charge. After reviewing the record, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment and partial dismissal, concluding that plaintiffs have not raised triable issues of fact as to whether Proposition 100 and its implementing procedures violated the substantive and procedural due process guarantees of the United State's Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, the Excessive Bail Clause of the Eighth Amendment, and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, nor whether the Proposition 100 laws were preempted by federal immigration law. The court concluded that the Arizona Legislature and Arizona voters passed the Proposition 100 laws to further the state's legitimate and compelling interest in seeing that those accused of serious state-law crimes were brought to trial.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment and partial Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of a class action challenging Proposition 100, a ballot measure passed by Arizona voters that amended the state constitution to preclude bail for certain serious felony offenses if the person charged has entered or remained in the United States illegally and if the proof is evident or the presumption great as to the charge. The panel held that the Arizona Legislature and Arizona voters passed Proposition 100 and its implementing statute and rules to further the state’s legitimate and compelling interest in seeing that those accused of serious state-law crimes are brought to trial. The panel concluded that Plaintiffs-Appellants had not succeeded in raising triable issues of fact as to whether Proposition 100 and its implementing procedures violate the substantive and procedural due process guarantees of the United States Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment, the Excessive Bail Clause of the Eighth Amendment, and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, nor whether the Proposition 100 laws are preempted by federal immigration law. Dissenting, Judge Fisher stated that Proposition 100’s legislative history and scope revealed that Arizona is plainly using the denial of bail as a method to punish “illegal” immigrants, rather than simply as a tool to help manage arrestees’ flight risk. He stated that this bail-denial scheme contravenes the Constitution’s fundamental prohibition on punishment before a determination of guilt in a criminal trial.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on January 2, 2014.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on October 15, 2014.
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.