FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT M.S., an individual; V.V., an No. 16-35431 individual; J.H., an individual; E.D., an individual; M.B., an individual; D.C. No. FAMILIAS EN ACCION, a domestic 6:15-cv-02069- non-profit corporation; LOS NINOS AA CUENTAN, a domestic non-profit corporation, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, OPINION Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. KATE BROWN, in her official capacity as Governor of the State of Oregon; TAMMY BANEY, in her official capacity as Chair of the Oregon Department of Transportation Commission; DAVID LOHMAN, in his official capacity as member of the Oregon Department of Transportation Commission; SUSAN MORGAN, in her official capacity as member of the Oregon Department of Transportation Commission; ALANDO SIMPSON, in his official capacity as member of the Oregon Department of Transportation Commission; SEAN O’HALLORAN, in his official capacity 2 M.S. V. BROWN as member of the Oregon Department of Transportation Commission; MATTHEW L. GARRETT, in his official capacity as Director, Oregon Department of Transportation; TOM MCCLELLAN, in his official capacity as Administrator of Driver and Motor Vehicles Division, Oregon Department of Transportation, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Ann L. Aiken, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted May 17, 2018 Portland, Oregon Filed September 5, 2018 Before: A. Wallace Tashima, M. Margaret McKeown, and Richard A. Paez, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Paez M.S. V. BROWN 3 SUMMARY * Civil Rights The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, of an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various Oregon state officials challenging the rejection by Oregon voters of Senate Bill 833, which would have afforded Oregon residents access to driver cards without requiring proof of their legal presence in the United States. Plaintiffs alleged that voters’ rejection, by referendum through ballot Measure 88, of SB 833 was motivated by discriminatory animus, and that the state officials’ consequent refusal to issue driver cards violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection and due process. Plaintiffs sought (1) a declaration that Measure 88 violates their constitutional rights and was void and unenforceable; (2) a declaration that the Governor was authorized and required to issue driver cards pursuant to SB 833; and (3) an injunction, if necessary to enforce such declarations. The panel held that because plaintiffs’ requested remedies were either ineffective or beyond the scope of the district court’s remedial power, plaintiffs failed to establish redressability. Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing the complaint for lack of standing. The panel held that except in certain circumstances not applicable in this case, structural constitutional limits prevent federal * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. 4 M.S. V. BROWN courts from ordering government officials to enact or implement a bill that has not completed a lawfully prescribed legislative process—which, in Oregon, requires majority voter approval once a bill is properly ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals