Supreme Court of the United States
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
No. 14-460 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States JOHN HICKENLOOPER, GOVERNOR OF COLORADO, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, Petitioner, v. ANDY KERR, COLORADO STATE REPRESENTATIVE, et al., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI MICHAEL F. FEELEY DAVID E. SKAGGS CARRIE E. JOHNSON Counsel of Record SARAH MAY MERCER CLARK LINO S. LIPINSKY DE ORLOV BROWNSTEIN HYATT HERBERT LAWRENCE FENSTER FARBER SCHRECK LLP MCKENNA LONG 410 17th Street, Suite 2200 & ALDRIDGE LLP Denver, CO 80202-4437 1400 Wewatta Street (303) 223-1100 Suite 700 Denver, CO 80202 MICHAEL BENDER (303) 634-4000 PERKINS COIE LLP [email protected] 1900 Sixteenth Street, Suite 1400 Denver, CO 80202-5255 (303) 291-2300 JOHN A. HERRICK 2715 Blake Street, Suite 9 Denver, CO 80205 (720) 987-3122 Counsel for Respondents November 21, 2014 i QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether there are compelling reasons for this Court to review the Tenth Circuit’s unanimous interlocutory opinion affirming the District Court’s rulings: (i) that none of the Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), political question factors requires dismissal of the Respondents’ narrowly tailored Guarantee Clause challenge to Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights; and (ii) that the state legislator Respondents have alleged a concrete, institutional injury-in-fact sufficient to satisfy the requirements of legislative standing set forth in Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939), and later refined in Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997). ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE No party to this proceeding is a corporation. Petitioner is John Hickenlooper, Governor of Colorado, in his official capacity. Respondents are Andy Kerr, Colorado State Representative; Norma V. Anderson; Jane M. Barnes; Elaine Gantz Berman, member, State Board of Education; Alexander E. Bracken; William K. Bregar; Bob Briggs, Westminster City Councilman; Bruce W. Broderius; Trudy B. Brown; John C. Buechner; Stephen A. Burkholder; Richard L. Byyny; Lois Court, Colorado State Representative; Theresa L. Crater; Robin Crossan, member, Steamboat Springs RE-2 Board of Education; Richard E. Ferdinandsen; Stephanie Garcia; Kristi Hargrove; Dickey Lee Hullinghorst, Colorado State Representative; Nancy Jackson, Arapahoe County Commissioner; William G. Kaufman; Claire Levy; Margaret Markert, Aurora City Councilwoman; Megan J. Masten; Michael Merrifield; Marcella Morrison; John P. Morse; Pat Noonan; Ben Pearlman; Wallace Pulliam; Paul Weissmann; and Joseph W. White. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTIONS PRESENTED ........................................ i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE .................................... ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................ iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... v OPINIONS BELOW ................................................... 1 JURISDICTION .......................................................... 1 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ......................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................... 5 REASONS FOR DENYING THE PETITION ........... 9 I. The Petitioner has not presented compelling reasons for interlocutory review of the Tenth Circuit’s holding that the political question doctrine does not bar the Respondents’ Guarantee Clause claim. .......... 10 A. The Tenth Circuit’s approach was consistent with this Court’s political question jurisprudence. ............................. 11 B. Any questions left open by New York did not split the circuits and do not compel resolution here. .......................................... 13 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page C. The Colorado Enabling Act provides an independent statutory basis for challenging TABOR, and is not subject to the political question doctrine. .............. 15 II. The Petitioner has not presented compelling reasons for interlocutory review of the Tenth Circuit’s holding that the Legislator-Respondents claim a concrete, institutional injury-in-fact that satisfies the requirements of legislative standing. ....... 18 A. The Tenth Circuit’s ruling on standing comports with Coleman and Raines. ......... 18 B. The Tenth Circuit’s opinion does not expand legislative standing beyond Raines or conflict with other circuits. ....... 21 C. Analysis of standing is inextricably intertwined with evidence to be adduced on the merits. ............................................. 23 CONCLUSION .......................................................... 26 APPENDIX Appendix A Reporter's Transcript of Hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (February 15, 2012)……………..App. 1 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page(s) Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) ......................... 11, 12, 13, 14 Beary Landscaping, Inc. v. Costigan, 667 F.3d 947 (7th Cir. 2012) ............................. 12 Branson School District RE-82 v. Romer, 161 F.3d 619 (10th Cir. 1998) ........................... 16 Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014) ................................... 9, 10 Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939) ................................... passim Corr v. Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, 800 F. Supp. 2d 743 (E.D. Va. 2011) ................. 12 Day v. Bond, 500 F.3d 1127 (10th Cir. 2007) ................... 24, 25 El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries Co. v. United States, 607 F.3d 836 (D.C. Cir. 2010) ........................... 15 Indian Country, U.S.A., Inc. v. Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 829 F.2d 967 (10th Cir. 1987) ........................... 17 Initiative & Referendum Institute v. Walker, 450 F.3d 1082 (10th Cir. 2006) ............. 23, 24, 25 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page(s) Japan Whaling Association v. American Cetacean Society, 478 U.S. 221 (1986) ........................................... 16 Largess v. Supreme Judicial Court, 373 F.3d 219 (1st Cir. 2004) .................. 12, 23, 25 Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly, 377 U.S. 713 (1964) ....................................... 6, 15 Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 1 (1849) ............................ 11, 14 Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) ............................................. 13 Mohawk Industies, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009) ........................................... 10 New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) ................................... passim Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118 (1912) .................. 10, 11, 14 Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) ................................... passim Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) ........................................... 11 Risser v. Thompson, 930 F.2d 549 (7th Cir. 1991) ............................. 12 vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page(s) Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) ....................................... 6, 15 Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) ............................................. 7 United States v. New Mexico, 536 F.2d 1324 (10th Cir. 1976) ......................... 17 Utah ex rel. Division of State Lands v. Kleppe, 586 F.2d 756 (10th Cir. 1978), rev’d on other grounds, sub nom. Andrus v. Utah, 446 U.S. 500 (1980) ........................................... 17 Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) ........................................... 18 Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 132 S. Ct. 1421 (2012) ................................. 14, 16 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS United States Constitution, Article IV § 4 ............................................................... passim Colorado Constitution, Article X § 20 ............................................................. passim § 20(4)(a) .............................................................. 7 § 20(7)(a) .............................................................. 7 § 20(7)(d) .............................................................. 7 § 20(8)(a) .............................................................. 7 viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page(s) STATUTES Colorado Statehood Enabling Act of 1875, 18 Stat. 474 (the “Colorado Enabling Act”) ... passim RULES Supreme Court Rules Rule 10 ................................................................. 9 Rule 10(a) ............................................................. 9 Rule 10(c) ............................................................. 9 1 OPINIONS BELOW The March 7, 2014 panel opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Pet. App. 1–53, is reported at 744 F.3d 1156. The Tenth Circuit’s order denying the Governor’s petition for rehearing en banc was filed July 22, 2014, Pet. App. 54–77, and is reported at 759 F.3d 1186. The opinion of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado denying the Governor’s motion to dismiss, Pet. App. 88–180, was issued July 30, 2012, and is reported at 880 F. Supp. 2d 1112. The September 21, 2012, order of the district court certifying this case for interlocutory appeal, Pet. App. 78–87, is not reported. JURISDICTION The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The court of appeals had jurisdiction to review the district court’s interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED The Guarantee Clause,