Arizona Students' Ass'n v. Arizona Board of Regents
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9906
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Arizona Students’ Association (ASA), a nonprofit representing students at Arizona public universities, used a student fee (collected by Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) 1998–2013) to fund political advocacy, including heavy support for Proposition 204 in 2012.
- After ASA’s Proposition 204 advocacy (including donations, petition gathering, ballot materials, canvassing), several Regents and the Governor criticized ASA; ABOR held special meetings, suspended collection of the ASA fee, withheld spring 2013 fees, and later changed policy to opt-in collection and required ASA to reimburse administrative costs.
- ASA sued ABOR under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First Amendment retaliation and sought declaratory and injunctive relief; ABOR moved to dismiss on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and Rule 12(b)(6) grounds.
- The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, holding ABOR is immune and ASA failed to state a claim and that amendment to name individual Regents would be futile.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo, concluded ABOR is an arm of the state (Eleventh Amendment applies) but the Ex Parte Young doctrine permits prospective relief against state officials, and held ASA sufficiently pleaded First Amendment retaliation based on deprivation of a valuable government benefit (fee collection/remittance).
- The Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal, held the complaint plausibly alleged retaliatory motive and chilling effect, and remanded with instructions to allow ASA leave to amend to sue individual Regents in their official capacities for prospective relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity bars ASA’s suit | Sovereign immunity does not bar claims for prospective injunctive/declaratory relief against state officials (Ex Parte Young); ASA seeks such relief | ABOR is an arm of the State and thus immune from suit; Eleventh Amendment deprives court of jurisdiction | ABOR is an arm of the State (immune to retrospective relief), but Ex Parte Young allows prospective equitable relief if officials are named; court erred in dismissing entire suit on immunity grounds |
| Whether ASA stated a plausible First Amendment retaliation claim | ASA engaged in core political speech; ABOR’s suspension and policy change targeted ASA and deprived its primary funding, chilling speech | ABOR argued its policy change was a neutral decision to stop facilitating collection (analogous to payroll deduction cases like Davenport/Ysura) and no valuable government benefit was taken | Complaint plausibly alleged retaliation: core political speech, deprivation of a valuable government benefit (fee collection/remittance), and facts supporting retaliatory motive; dismissal on 12(b)(6) grounds was erroneous |
| Whether collection/remittance of student fees is a "valuable government benefit" supporting a retaliation claim | Fifteen years of free collection/remittance converted the service into a significant government-provided benefit tied to ASA’s political activity; loss plausibly chills speech | ABOR said fee collection was voluntary and revocable and not an objective public benefit like employment or license | Fee collection/remittance can be a valuable government benefit; deprivation for retaliatory reasons can support a First Amendment claim |
| Whether leave to amend to name individual Regents would be futile | ASA requested leave to amend to conform to Ex Parte Young and name officials in official capacities | District court found amendment futile and denied leave | Denial of leave to amend was an abuse of discretion; ASA must be permitted to amend to pursue prospective relief against officials |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard for plausible claims under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (prospective injunctive relief against state officials for ongoing federal-law violations)
- Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974) (Eleventh Amendment bars retrospective relief against states)
- Davenport v. Wash. Educ. Ass'n, 551 U.S. 177 (2007) (state may refuse to facilitate union political spending via payroll deductions)
- Ysura v. Pocatello Educ. Ass'n, 555 U.S. 353 (2009) (no affirmative right to use government payroll mechanisms for political fees)
- Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988) (petition circulation is core political speech)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (broad protection for political expression)
- Mendocino Envtl. Ctr. v. Mendocino County, 192 F.3d 1283 (9th Cir. 1999) (retaliation claim elements and that actual suppression need not be shown)
- Outdoor Media Grp., Inc. v. City of Beaumont, 506 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2007) (deprivation of governmental opportunity to exhibit speech can be a valuable government benefit)
- Rutledge v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 660 F.2d 1345 (9th Cir. 1981) (ABOR is an arm of the State for Eleventh Amendment purposes)