On June 29, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistrict Commission, No. 13-1314, holding that a State legislature has standing to challenge a State constitutional amendment that removes its congressional redistricting authority and gives it to an independent commission, but the Elections Clause of the Constitution and 2 U.S.C. §2a(c) both allow a State to use a commission to adopt congressional districts. By referendum, Arizona’s voters amended their state constitution to provide that the boundaries of electoral districts for Congress would be drawn by an independent commission, rather than by the state legislature itself.

Citing what some might call a quirk of the U.S. Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) recent opinion in Arizona Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC), U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Columbia Rosemary M. Collyer ruled last week that House lawmakers have standing to sue the executive branch over funding of Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies. You may recall from SCOTUS’ June 29, 2015, Arizona Legislature v. AIRC, that the high court held in a sharply divided (5-4) decision that (1) the Arizona Legislature had standing to sue and (2) that the Elections Clause and 2 U.S.C. § 2a(c) permitted Arizona’s use of the AIRC to draw congressional districts. The institutional body could sue on the question of whether the voters’ initiative Proposition 106 stripped the Legislature of its claimed constitutional prerogative to engage in redistricting, SCOTUS held.

Arizona legislators challenged the constitutionality of the initiative, and the federal district court of Arizona ruled that the plan did not violate the Elections Clause of the Federal Constitution. The Court granted cert. on the questions “(1) Whether 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; and (2) Whether the Arizona Legislature have standing to bring this suit.” Oral argument has not yet been scheduled.