809 F. Supp. 2d 1084
D. Ariz.2011Background
- Plaintiffs challenge the Maricopa Migrant Conspiracy Policy (MMCP) as unconstitutional under federal law and state law, initially asserting claims from six Mexican nationals, four organizations, and five taxpayers.
- Defendants include the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Maricopa County Sheriff, and Maricopa County Attorney; the Board is sued only in official capacity.
- The case history includes a Younger abstention-related dismissal in a prior action, with the Ninth Circuit remanding to determine organizational and taxpayer standing.
- A new County Attorney and time elapsed raised mootness concerns, which the court ultimately rejects as the policy enforcement persisted, keeping the action live.
- The court analyzes standing for two groups: (a) organizational plaintiffs (We Are America/Somos America Coalition of Arizona, AHCF, LULAC, Friendly House) and (b) taxpayer plaintiffs (municipal taxpayers Kyrsten Sinema, Steve Lujan, Cecilia Menjivar, LaDawn Haglund, plus state taxpayer Gallardo).
- The court also addresses Rooker-Feldman and limits its scope to whether the alleged ongoing MMCP enforcement can be enjoined or declared unconstitutional.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do organizational plaintiffs have standing? | WAA/SAC, AHCF, and Friendly House have injury in fact from resource diversion and impaired mission. | Standing is too generalized; no concrete injury shown, especially for LULAC. | WAA/SAC, AHCF, Friendly House have organizational standing; LULAC lacks standing. |
| Do municipal taxpayers have standing to challenge MMCP? | Municipal taxpayers suffer improper expenditure of public funds supporting MMCP. | Taxpayer standing requires direct dollars-and-cents injury; plaintiffs fail to show this. | Municipal taxpayers have standing to plead injury in fact; action not dismissed on standing grounds for these taxpayers (Sinema, Lujan, Menjivar, Haglund). |
| Does Gallardo have standing as an Arizona state taxpayer? | Gallardo, as a state taxpayer, challenges MMCP as improper expenditure of state funds. | State taxpayer standing is generally unavailable; alleged injury is not particularized. | Gallardo lacks state-taxpayer standing; claims dismissed as to Gallardo. |
| Does the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bar the case as to the organizational plaintiffs? | Rooker-Feldman does not bar challenges to ongoing enforcement of MMCP. | Rooker-Feldman bars de facto state-court appeals. | Rooker-Feldman does not bar the action against MMCP; doctrine does not apply to organizational standing here. |
| Is the action moot due to changes in County leadership or enforcement policy? | Election and policy shifts moot the controversy. | Enforcement policy remains in effect; case not moot. | Action not moot; MMCP enforcement continued under new County Attorney; merits proceed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (U.S. 1982) (organizational standing—injury in fact from impairment of mission and diversion of resources)
- Pacific Properties, Inc. v. City of Lake Forest, 358 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2004) (two-prong organizational standing: injury to mission and diversion of resources)
- El Rescate Legal Servs., Inc. v. Exec. Office of Immigration Rev., 959 F.2d 742 (9th Cir. 1992) (organizational standing where mission and resources implicated by policy)
- Cammack v. Waihee, 932 F.2d 770 (9th Cir. 1991) (municipal taxpayer standing—injury from improper expenditure of funds)
- Doremus v. Board of Ed. of Hawthorne, 342 U.S. 429 (U.S. 1952) (taxpayer standing requires direct injury, not remote or generalized)
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 336 (U.S. 2006) (state taxpayer standing limits; pocketbook injury generally required)