Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
improved
Line 1: Line 1: −
In ''Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona'', 520 U.S. 43, 67 (1997), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that [[standing]] must exist at every stage of the litigation, not merely when the complaint is filed.  Because the Court held that the plaintiff lack [[standing]], it did not reach the merits of the dispute as to whether a 1988 Arizona ballot initiative established English as the official language of the State. Passed on November 8, 1988, by a margin of one percentage point, 1 the measure became effective on December 5 as Arizona State Constitution Article XXVIII.
+
In ''Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona'', 520 U.S. 43, 67 (1997), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that [[standing]] must exist at every stage of the litigation, not merely when the complaint is filed.  "The standing Article III requires must be met by persons seeking appellate review, just as it must be met by persons appearing in courts of first instance," the Court held.  Because the Court held that the plaintiff lack [[standing]], it did not reach the merits of the dispute as to whether a 1988 Arizona ballot initiative established English as the official language of the State. Passed on November 8, 1988, by a margin of one percentage point, the measure became effective on December 5 as Arizona State Constitution Article XXVIII.
    
Justice [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]] delivered the opinion of the unanimous court.  The Court used surprisingly critical language for the [[Ninth Circuit]], which rejected numerous state efforts and its suggested interpretation of the new law.  The Court held that the [[Ninth Circuit]] should have certified the question to the state Supreme Court.  Justice Ginsburg wrote:
 
Justice [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]] delivered the opinion of the unanimous court.  The Court used surprisingly critical language for the [[Ninth Circuit]], which rejected numerous state efforts and its suggested interpretation of the new law.  The Court held that the [[Ninth Circuit]] should have certified the question to the state Supreme Court.  Justice Ginsburg wrote:
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,530

edits

Navigation menu