Arizona State Legislature v.Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

IQuestion presented

Further consideration of the question of jurisdiction is postponed to the hearing of the case on the merits limited to the following questions: 1) Do the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution and 2 U. S. C. §2a(c) permit Arizona's use of a commission to adopt congressional districts? 2) Does the Arizona Legislature have standing to bring this suit?

Facts

Until 2000, the Arizona State Constitution granted the State Legislature the ability to draw congressional districts, subject to the possibility of a gubernatorial veto. In 2000, the Arizona voters passed Proposition 106, which amended the state constitution to remove the congressional redistricting power from the legislature and vest it in the newly created Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC). In 2012, after the IRC approved a new congressional district map, the legislature sued the IRC and argued that Proposition 106 violated the Elections Clause of the federal Constitution by removing redistricting authority from the legislature and therefore that the new district map was unconstitutional and void. The legislature also requested that the district court permanently enjoin the IRC from adopting, implementing, or enforcing the new congressional district map. The district court held that Proposition 106 did not violate the Elections Clause of the federal Constitution.

The two questions are the Court's jurisdiction order on the supremecourt.gov docket.

IITimeline

1. Jurisdiction postponed Oct. 2, 2014
2. Argued Mar. 2, 2015
3. Decided June 29, 2015
4. Judgment issued July 31, 2015

This case came to the Court on appeal, not certiorari. Release 2026_01 codes the jurisdiction as appeal and the cert reason as case did not arise on cert. The October 2, 2014 docket entry postponed jurisdiction to the argument.

Argument and decision: Supreme Court Database, release 2026_01 (CC BY-NC). Jurisdiction postponed and judgment issued: supremecourt.gov docket.

IIIParties, court below, and counsel

Court below

U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The database codes the lower-court disposition as affirmed. Oyez names the court below as a federal district court.

Counsel of record

• Paul D. Clement. Appellant. Arizona State Legislature.
• Paula S. Bickett. Appellee. Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan.
• Seth P. Waxman. Appellee. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, et al.

Party names: Oyez (CC BY-NC). Party types and court below: Supreme Court Database, release 2026_01 (CC BY-NC). Counsel of record: supremecourt.gov docket.

IVArgument

• Argument transcript
• Argument audio
• Questions presented

Audio is linked, not rehosted.

Oyez (CC BY-NC). Transcript: supremecourt.gov. Audio is linked, not rehosted.

VFilings

1. Oct. 2, 2014 Jurisdiction postponed to the hearing on the merits.
2. Mar. 2, 2015 Argued.
3. June 29, 2015 Affirmed. Judgment line entered on the docket.
4. July 31, 2015 Judgment issued.

The slip-opinion file returned 404 on 2026-10-07. The bound volume for 576 U.S. is the live Court PDF. The docket page is the filings log. It links the questions-presented PDF. It does not link a PDF for each brief.

supremecourt.gov docket.

VIOpinions and votes

Arizona's voters took congressional map-drawing from the legislature and gave it to an independent commission. The legislature sued and lost. The Court affirmed the district court, five to four. Justice Ginsburg wrote for the majority that the Elections Clause allows the commission. Chief Justice Roberts dissented, joined by Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Justices Scalia and Thomas also wrote separate dissents, and each joined the other.

A reading of the judgment line and the Oyez conclusion. It adds no facts beyond those sources.

• Majority opinion

  Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Anthony M. Kennedy, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan

• Dissent

  John G. Roberts, Jr., joined by Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel A. Alito, Jr.

• Dissent

  Antonin Scalia, joined by Clarence Thomas

• Dissent

  Clarence Thomas, joined by Antonin Scalia

U.S. Reports

576 U.S. 787 (2015)

Decided

June 29, 2015

Argued

Mar. 2, 2015

Vote

5–4

Disposition

Affirmed

Prevailing party

Respondent

Direction

Liberal (Supreme Court Database code)

Majority author

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Issue area

Civil Rights

Issue

reapportionment: other than plans governed by the Voting Rights Act

Joins follow the judgment line on the Court's docket. The Supreme Court Database agrees on who voted with the majority and who wrote. The judgment line records no concurrence.

Votes and disposition: Supreme Court Database, release 2026_01 (CC BY-NC). Who joined: supremecourt.gov docket.

Where the majority and the dissent sat

On the published Martin-Quinn scores for October Term 2014, the majority runs from -2.16 to +0.47. The dissent runs from +1.25 to +3.54.

Martin-Quinn scores, October Term 2014, as already used on the homepage.

VIIFurther reading

• Supreme Court docket supremecourt.gov
• Opinion, 576 U.S. 787 (2015) supremecourt.gov
• Argument transcript supremecourt.gov
• Argument audio Oyez
• Oyez Oyez
• Justia Justia
• LII LII

Links only. These pages are not rehosted here.