Case: Arizona, et al. v. Promise Arizona, et al., No. 25-1022
Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2026-02-25
Status: Pending
Question Presented: 1) Does Article III allow an organization to sue when an unknown number of its unidentified members “may be” injured, as the Ninth Circuit held below in conflict with at least seven other circuits? 2) Did the Ninth Circuit improperly reweigh evidence of discriminatory purpose while purporting to review the district court’s finding for clear error?
On February 19, 2026, Arizona filed its petition for a writ of certiorari, asking the Court to review a Ninth Circuit decision that allowed Promise Arizona and allied organizations to maintain suit challenging Arizona voting regulations. The filing came after Justice Kagan granted Arizona an extension to submit the petition, pushing the deadline from December 2025 to February 2026. Petitioner is represented by Joshua David Rothenberg Bendor.
The underlying dispute involves Arizona voting laws that the plaintiff organizations contend were enacted with discriminatory purpose. Arizona argues the Ninth Circuit improperly reweighed evidence of discriminatory purpose rather than applying the proper clear-error standard to the district court's factual finding. The organizations were permitted to sue on behalf of members who were not individually identified and whose injuries were described only as possible.
The petition raises two distinct but related concerns. The standing question targets a recognized circuit split, with the Ninth Circuit's approach permitting suit based on speculative, unidentified harm in conflict with at least seven other circuits. The second question challenges whether the Ninth Circuit effectively conducted a de novo review of a factual finding rather than deferring to the district court under the clear-error standard. Either issue, standing alone, could warrant the Court’s attention.
The standing question carries consequences well beyond voting rights litigation. A ruling that tightens associational standing requirements would affect organizational plaintiffs across civil rights, environmental, and administrative law cases. The Oyez case page will track further developments as the response deadline of March 27, 2026 approaches and the Court decides whether to add this case to its docket.