Brian Mecinas v. Katie Hobbs

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that that a ballot-order statute created an illegally structured competitive environment that supported standing
• noting that, when a moving party 3 makes a factual challenge to subject matter jurisdiction by presenting evidence, “the court 4 may resolve any factual disputes concerning the existence of jurisdiction”
• requiring “the implicated state official [to] have a relevant role that goes beyond a generalized duty to enforce state law or general supervisory power over the persons responsible for enforcing the challenged provision” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• “[T]he first step . . . is to consider the character and magnitude of the asserted 20 injury . . . .”
• “In a suit with multiple plaintiffs, generally only one plaintiff need have standing for the suit to proceed.”
• “And given that Arizona’s asserted interest in a manageable ballot 14 could seemingly be effectuated through a nondiscriminatory ordering system, judgment in the 15 Secretary’s favor is premature at this juncture.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).