Pierce v. Ducey, No. 19-17071 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Arizona's Governor appealed the district court's declaratory judgment interpreting the New Mexico-Arizona Enabling Act of 1910. The district court declared that even after a 1999 amendment, the Enabling Act continues to require congressional consent to any changes to the state constitution affecting the investment or distribution of assets in Arizona's land trust for public schools.
The Ninth Circuit vacated, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter this judgment. The panel held that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge either past or future changes to the distribution formula. In this case, plaintiff stipulated that the only injury particular to him is his individual belief that the state is not obeying federal law, but such an injury is not concrete for Article III standing. The panel also held that, even if this case had initially presented a justiciable controversy, that controversy ended when Congress consented to the distribution formula in Proposition 123.
Court Description: Article III Case or Controversy. Holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction, the panel vacated the district court’s declaratory judgment interpreting the New-Mexico Enabling Act of 1910 and declaring that even after a 1999 amendment, the Enabling Act continues to require congressional consent to any changes to the Arizona state constitution affecting the investment or distribution of assets in Arizona’s land trust for public schools. The panel held that the plaintiff, an Arizona citizen, lacked Article III standing in light of his stipulation that the only injury particular to him was his individual belief that the state was not obeying federal law in implementing Proposition 123, a constitutional amendment that changed the distribution formula. The panel further held that even if this case had initially presented a justiciable controversy, that controversy ended when Congress consented to the distribution formula in Proposition 123. The panel therefore vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss. PIERCE V. DUCEY 3
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.