Number
88642-01-01
GRANTOR:
V LIONS HOLDINGS, LLC,
a Nevada limited liability company
BY: V LIONS MANAGEMENT, LLC, A
NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA AS GARDINER V LIONS
MANAGEMENT, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY,
ITS MANAGER
By: _________________________________
Keith B. Gardiner
Chief Executive Officer
Number
88642-01-01
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this
certificate verifies only the identity of the
individual who signed the document to which
this certificate is attached, and not the
truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that
document.
State of California
County of _______________________
On ___________________ before me, ________________________________, Notary Public, personally appeared ___________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signatures(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature _____________________________
(Seal)
Number
88642-01-01
EXHIBIT “A”
Legal Description
Number
88642-01-01
CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
(Government Code Section 27281)
This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by the GRANT DEED dated ____________________, 20_____, from V LIONS HOLDINGS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, to the CITY OF SHAFTER, a California municipal corporation, is hereby accepted for public purposes by order of the City Council of the City of Shafter on ____________________, 20_____, and the grantee consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer.
CITY OF SHAFTER
By:______________________________
Lance Lippincott, City Manager
Dated: __________________________
ATTEST:
By:______________________________
Yazmina Pallares, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY
ker43pm15_69_am
APPRAISAL MAP
EXHIBIT B
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY
ker43pm15_88_am
APPRAISAL MAP
EXHIBIT B
MANAGEMENT REPORT
CITY OF SHAFTER
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2025
DEPARTMENT: Alex Gonzalez, Deputy Public Works Director, Michael James, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: BEECH AVENUE ROUNDABOUT PROJECT CLOSURE
MITIGATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
AUTHORIZATION
RECOMMENDATION
Council find that the action is not defined as a project per Section 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines; authorize the creation of a new Capital Improvement Project for traffic mitigation related to the planned closure of Beech Avenue at the roundabout project; and approve a budget action to allocate $500,000 in Traffic Impact Fee proceeds for design and construction of the initial mitigation improvements.
BACKGROUND
At its July 15, 2025 meeting, the City Council received a presentation on options for the Beech Avenue connection to the proposed roundabout at Santa Fe Way and Highway 43, including potential traffic impacts of a future closure. Following that discussion, Staff indicated it would return with an action item to begin traffic mitigation efforts in advance of the closure.
The City, in partnership with Caltrans, is finalizing design and right-of-way acquisition for the roundabout project, with construction now anticipated to begin in 2027. To prepare for the expected closure of Beech Avenue, Staff proposes establishing a new Capital Improvement Project (CIP) dedicated to traffic mitigation measures, with the goal of completing these improvements before roundabout construction begins. The initial phase of the CIP includes:
• Design and engineering services estimated at approximately $100,000; and • Construction of priority improvements, focused on new traffic signals at the intersections of Lerdo Highway and Cherry Avenue and Santa Fe Way and Cherry Avenue, estimated at approximately $400,000.
While the City previously secured $5 million in mitigation funding through a settlement agreement with the California High-Speed Rail Authority, those funds have not been
BEECH AVENUE ROUNDABOUT PROJECT CLOSURE MITIGATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT AUTHORIZATION
- 2 -
authorized for use ahead of the Authority’s planned grade separation project in Shafter.
To advance these critical mitigation improvements, staff proposes to initially use Traffic Impact Fee proceeds, with the intent to pursue HSR settlement funding for later phases.
FISCAL IMPACT
Establishing the proposed Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for traffic mitigation will require a budget action to allocate $500,000 in Traffic Impact Fee proceeds. This amount includes $100,000 for design and engineering services and $400,000 for the construction of priority improvements at the intersections of Lerdo Highway and Cherry Avenue and Santa Fe Way and Cherry Avenue. No General Fund contribution is required. While the City has secured $5 million in mitigation funds through the HighSpeed Rail settlement agreement, those funds have not been approved for preemptive use ahead of the Authority’s planned grade separation project in Shafter. Traffic Impact Fee proceeds will fund the initial phase of work, with additional funding to be pursued for future phases.
CEQA ANALYSIS
The proposed action to establish a new Capital Improvement Project and allocate funding for design and initial traffic mitigation improvements is not defined as a “project” per Section 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines. The action constitutes organizational and administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment and is therefore not subject to CEQA. The planned roundabout project, including the closure of Beech Avenue, has already been environmentally cleared, and any future construction projects funded through this CIP will undergo separate environmental review as required.
APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY
Not Applicable
ATTACHMENTS
None
MANAGEMENT REPORT
CITY OF SHAFTER
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2025
DEPARTMENT: Lance Lippincott, City Manager
SUBJECT: COUNCIL POLICY REGARDING NOTIFICATION OF CRITICAL
INCIDENT ACTIONS INVOLVING SHAFTER POLICE
DEPARTMENT DISCUSSION
RECOMMENDATION
Council find the action is not defined as a “project” per Section 15378(b)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines; discuss and provide direction regarding whether the current practice of the City Manager notifying Councilmembers of non-confidential incidents involving fatalities, grievous bodily harm, or potential for significant ongoing threat to the public, in addition to regular reporting through multiple modalities, should be maintained.
BACKGROUND
It is currently the practice of the City Manager's Office to provide Council immediate notification of events concerning the Shafter Police Department involving fatalities, grievous bodily harm, or potential for significant ongoing threat to the public. On July 17, 2025, Mayor Chad Givens requested that the City Manager bring an item before City Council to discuss and formalize a notification policy. This is the first instance of a Councilmember inquiring about a policy of this type, and no formal direction has been previously provided. In order to receive clear direction from all of Council in compliance with the potentially soon-to-be-enacted Council Policies and Protocols (request exceeds two hours), Staff thought it prudent to bring an item to set a policy regarding when Council should be notified of incidents involving or being investigated by the Shafter Police Deparmtent. Generally, Police Departments are restricted from sharing details of ongoing investigations to:
• Protect the integrity of the investigation;
• Avoid compromising evidence or prosecution; and,
• Preserve individual privacy and due process rights.
Shafter City Charter Section 5.03(E) provides that the City Manager shall "[K]eep the Council advised of the financial condition, current and future needs of the City. The City Manager shall make such recommendations to the Council concerning the affairs of the City as he/she shall deem necessary or desirable." As a means of implementing this Charter directive, the following information and updates are provided to the
COUNCIL POLICY REGARDING NOTIFICATION OF CRITICAL INCIDENT ACTIONS INVOLVING
SHAFTER POLICE DEPARTMENT DISCUSSION
- 2 -
Council:
• The CitizenRIMS website provides up-to-date information on non-confidential police matters and is regularly updated. This is also available to the public to improve transparency;
• Monthly crime statistics are provided to City Council disclosing all nonconfidential police activity. These statistics include year-over-year analysis to help Council make informed policy decisions based on developing trends. Since late 2024, these statistics have been posted to the City social media to improve transparency to the public;
• Police updates (including statistics) are provided in a quarterly report to Council, detailing all non-confidential updates, any concerns and future needs. Quarterly reports are also posted to the Shafter Police Department webpage, and are available to the public to enhance transparency;
• Yearly police updates are reported out to the City Council and reports are posted to the Shafter Police Department to keep the public informed and enhance transparency;
• The City Manager provides individual notification to Councilmembers personally through text or call of non-confidential incidents involving fatalities, grievous bodily harm, or potential for significant ongoing threat to the public; and, • City Manager is available to respond to Councilmember requests for information on incidents at all times via telephone unless prior notice is given.
There are legal considerations to consider that may prevent or limit disclosure of incidents to Councilmembers:
• California Government Code Section 6254(f); and,
• Generally: The California Public Records Act
Additionally, required reporting of incidents not involving fatalities, grievous bodily harm, or potential for significant ongoing threat to the public, will impose a more significant administrative and bureaucratic burden on the City Manager and Staff not supported by an identified public benefit. As stated above, this request will include cumulative work exceeding two hours. For these reasons, Council should evaluate the current practices and determine whether they provide sufficient notice and information with the parameters established by law.
FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact.
CEQA ANALYSIS
The action is not defined as a “project” per Section 15378(b)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines because the action is receiving direction from the City Council regarding Council notification of critical incident action involving the Shafter Police Department and
COUNCIL POLICY REGARDING NOTIFICATION OF CRITICAL INCIDENT ACTIONS INVOLVING
SHAFTER POLICE DEPARTMENT DISCUSSION
- 3 -
therefore, it is considered general policy and procedure making and not subject to CEQA.
APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY
Yes
ATTACHMENTS
None
MANAGEMENT REPORT
CITY OF SHAFTER
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2025
DEPARTMENT: Lance Lippincott, City Manager
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR SUPPORT FROM CITY OF HUNTINGTON
BEACH OPPOSING STATE MANDATED REGIONAL HOUSING
NEEDS ASSESSMENT (RHNA) REQUIREMENTS
RECOMMENDATION
Council find the action is not defined as a "project" per Section 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines; discuss and direct staff to take such action the Council finds reasonable to address the request from the City of Huntington Beach.
BACKGROUND
In March 2023, the City of Huntington Beach filed a federal lawsuit against the State of California arguing that the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) established by the State violates the city's right to zone property. The following is the litigation history to date:
• November 2023 the US District Court heard initial motions and dismissed the case after argument from the parties.
• In 2024, the City of Huntingtin Beach appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but the court was not swayed and upheld the lower court ruling.
• Without having received the sought-after relief, the City of Huntington Beach is seeking Supreme Court review of the issues (petition due August 20, 2025), and has been reaching out for support to jurisdictions who have similar issues.
The City of Huntington Beach anticipates the following issues will most likely be the grounds for which review is sought:
• Do charter cities have standing as a political subdivisions to challenge state law in federal court?
• Does a political subdivision have any substantive rights under the 14th Amendment?
Most recently, correspondence was sent to the City of Shafter requesting support for
REQUEST FOR SUPPORT FROM CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH OPPOSING STATE MANDATED
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT (RHNA) REQUIREMENTS
- 2 -
the petition. The memo received from Kowal Law Group, APC on this issue has been included in the agenda for additional reference.
FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact.
CEQA ANALYSIS
The action is not defined as a “project” per Section 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines because the action is the possible approval of a support letter or some other form of support regarding City of Huntington Beach's opposition to RHNA requirements and therefore, it is organizational and administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment and not subject to CEQA.
APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY
Not Applicable
ATTACHMENTS
1. City of Huntington Beach v. State of Cal. Amicus Memo
- 1 -
KOWAL LAW GROUP, APC
MEMORANDUM
To: Potential Amicus Groups
From: Mike Vigliotta, City Attorney, City of Huntington Beach ([email protected]; (714) 536-5538;
Tim Kowal, Kowal Law Group, APC
([email protected]; 949-676-9989);
John Reeves, Reeves Law LLC
([email protected]; 314-804-2586)
Re: Amicus Request—SCOTUS Petition for Certiorari—
City of Huntington Beach, et al. v. Newsom, et al.,
No. 23-3694 (Ninth Circuit).
Deadlines: The petition is due on August 20, 2025, after Justice Kagan granted our extension application
(No. 25A12), making any amicus brief in support due
on September 19, 2025
I. QUESTIONS PRESENTED (TENTATIVE)
1. In a recognized split about standing, do local
governments—cities, counties, local school districts, or independent commissions—lack standing per se in federal courts to challenge unconstitutional state action, as the Ninth Circuit held here? Or does their standing depend on the nature of the constitutional claim being asserted, as the Second and Tenth Circuits have held?
2. A “political subdivision,” under the complete control of a state government, lacks any substantive rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. But political subdivisions are also considered “persons” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. If a state constitution vests a charter city with substantial independence from State control via Home Rule authority—an authority recognized by a majority of States—does that Home Rule
authority include substantive rights under the Fourteenth Amendment?
- 2 -
II. SELECTED CASE MATERIALS
Oct. 30, 2024 Mem. (Doc. 52.1).
Nov. 13, 2024 Petition for Rehearing En Banc.
Apr. 21, 2025 Or. Denying En Banc.
III. CASE BACKGROUND
The case arises from a conflict between the State of
California’s high-density housing mandates and the City’s constitutional and policy objections. Huntington Beach is a Charter City in California which, under the state constitution, enjoys Home Rule powers with substantial independence from state control. Those Home Rule powers include local zoning and housing development. The State threatens to compel the City to adopt specific high-density housing mandates, which include a mandate to make public statements favorably endorsing the virtues of high-density housing as more important than the attendant environmental harms. For half a century, state environmental law vests in cities the discretion whether to publicly endorse the virtues of a development. But given the unpopularity of its high-density policy, the State now seeks to compel this endorsement.
The City’s elected Councilmembers have considered and
declined to endorse the State’s high-density agenda. The Councilmembers do not agree with the State that dramatically increasing housing density (between an estimated 25% to nearly 50%) in the near-100% built-out City is unequivocally beneficial, or that its benefits overcome the negative impacts on
groundwater, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and other environmental factors, as established by the City’s experts.
The City’s Mayor and Councilmembers view this as
compelled speech that violates the First Amendment—
incorporated into the states by the Fourteenth Amendment—by forcing them to publicly espouse policy positions contrary to their own judgment and the interests of their constituents.
The City Huntington Beach brought suit against various
California state actors in their official capacities, arguing that California’s actions violated the First Amendment—incorporated
- 3 -
into the states via the Fourteenth Amendment—as well as the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. But the district court dismissed the case on standing grounds, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
The Ninth Circuit based its conclusion that Huntington
Beach lacked standing on its decision in City of South Lake Tahoe v. California Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 625 F.2d 231 (9th Cir. 1980). In South Lake Tahoe, the Ninth Circuit adopted a per se rule holding that political subdivisions such as cities, counties, and school districts can never bring constitutional challenges against the state government. Id. at 233-34. It based this on earlier Supreme Court precedent holding that because political subdivisions are public corporations lacking any autonomy from the state government, they lacked standing to sue the state government for constitutional violations. See, e.g., Willians v.
Mayor of Baltimore, 289 U.S. 36, 40 (1933); Trenton v. New Jersey, 262 U.S. 182, 188 (1923); Trenton v. New Jersey, 262 U.S. 182, 188 (1923).
In an acknowledged split—see City of San Juan Capistrano v. Cal. Public Utilities, 937 F.3d 1278, 1280 n.2 (9th Cir. 2019)— the Ninth Circuit’s per se rule stands in contrast to the holdings of seven other circuits, all of which hold that a political subdivision is not per se prohibited from bringing a constitutional challenge to state action, but rather the analysis depends on the nature of the challenge. See Tweed-New Haven Airport Auth. v.
Tong, 930 F.3d 65, 72-73 (2d Cir. 2019); Ocean Cty. Board of Commissioners v. Atty. Gen. of the State of New Jersey, 8 F.4th 176, 180-81 (3d Cir. 2021); Rogers v. Brockette, 588 F.2d 1057, 1067-71 (5th Cir. 1979); South Macomb Disposal Auth. v.
Washington Township, 790 F.2d 500, 503-05 (6th Cir. 1986); Branson School Dist. v. Romer, 161 F.3d 619, 628-30 (10th Cir. 1998); U.S. v. State of Alabama, 791 F.2d 1450, 1454-56 (11th Cir. 1986).
The above cases outside of the Ninth Circuit hold that a political subdivision may bring a constitutional challenge against state action if, for example, it involves the state government instructing the political subdivisions to discard federal law, thus bringing the Supremacy Clause into issue. See, e.g., Ocean Cty., 8 F.4th at 1180-81; Tweed, 930 F.3d at 72-74. While such cases also
- 4 -
hold that political subdivisions do not have any substantive Fourteenth Amendment rights and thus cannot sue state
governments on such grounds, see, e.g., id. at 73 n.7, this is based on the assumption that as political subdivisions they are subject to complete state control. See, e.g., State of Alabama, 791 F.2d at 1454. At no time did any of these decisions or the Ninth Circuit consider whether this rationale applies to charter cities, which are granted substantive independence under state constitutions.
What’s more, both the Supreme Court and the First Circuit have entertained political subdivisions challenging state action on substantive Fourteenth Amendment issues, without considering the standing matter. See Exeter-West Greenwich Reg’l Sch. Dist. v. Pontarelli, 788 F.2d 47 (1st Cir. 1986)
IV. POTENTIAL AMICUS TOPICS
Our certiorari petition will be seeking review on both
(1) the Ninth Circuit’s per se rule prohibiting political subdivisions from bringing constitutional challenges to state action under any circumstances, as well as (2) whether a local government or commission—whether or not a “political
subdivision”—may be vested with substantive Fourteenth
Amendment rights if, under the relevant state constitution, it has substantial independence from state control. These two issues are different expressions of a broader problem: Improper limitations on standing will result in both the deprivation of constitutional protection and the imbalanced development of constitutional law as affecting local governments.
A. Denying standing to “Political Subdivisions”
would create a drastic asymmetry in disputes
concerning State “sanctuary” policies, gender
language, flags and symbolic speech, and the
validity of independent commissions.
Below is a list of actual examples of the wide-ranging
consequences for “political subdivisions” in the Ninth Circuit if its per se holding is allowed to stand:
1. Do Cities lack standing to challenge State
“sanctuary” statutes? Some States have enacted laws
directing Cities concerning “sanctuary” policies, such as either mandating or prohibiting cooperation with ICE. The
- 5 -
City of South Miami, for example, sued the State of
Florida, and while the 11th Circuit ultimately upheld the law, the district court initially agreed with the City and enjoined the statute under the Equal Protection Clause.
City of South Miami v. DeSantis, No. 21‑13657 (11th Cir. 2023). And the City of El Cenizo and other Texas Cities sued the State in City of El Cenizo, Texas, et al. v. State of Texas, et al., 890 F.3d 164 (5th Cir. 2018), resulting in a partial injunction of the State’s prohibition on
“endorsement” of certain policies as an impermissible
content-based restriction violating the First Amendment.
Under a per se standing bar, no such precedent will ever exist in the 9th Circuit, because no such challenges may ever be brought.
2. Do School Districts lack standing to challenge State statutes governing school administration or
curriculum? Disputes over gender and pronoun policies
have become common. California’s Attorney General, for
example, sued a School District to enforce a State claim against outing transgender students. See Harlow et al., “Forcibly outing transgender students violates their state constitutional right to privacy,” SCOCAblog (Mar. 8, 2024), available at https://scocablog.com/forcibly-outingtransgender-students-violates-their-state-constitutionalright-to-privacy/. Under a per se standing bar, a School District could never seek First Amendment protection
against such State-compelled gender-related speech—
regardless of whether the gender-norms of the given State policy are conservative or progressive.
3. Do Cities lack standing to challenge Statecompelled, or State-prohibited, symbolic speech or viewpoint-based flags policies? Cities increasingly face demands to either display or suppress flags and other
symbols representing contested ideological or political positions, such as the Pride flag, the Christian flag, or political slogans. See Shurtleff v. City of Boston, 596 U.S. 243 (2022). Some States, like Utah and Idaho, have
enacted or considered restrictions against Pride or political flags. Under a per se standing bar, no City could ever test the Constitutionality of such a law.
- 6 -
4. Do Cities lack standing to challenge a State bar on
local firearm regulations? A State law in Florida
prohibited Cities from enacting any firearm regulations.
Cities sued the State, arguing the threat of fines chilled their First Amendment right to advocate for stricter
ordinances. Fried v. State, 355 So. 3d 899 (Fla. 2023). The Florida Supreme Court upheld the laws. But under a per
se standing bar, no such First Amendment challenge will ever exist in the 9th Circuit.
5. Do Independent Commissions lack standing to
challenge State actions to effectively abolish them
(such as cutting funding)? Many States have
Commissions that, while independently-authorized, are
dependent on State funding or other enabling actions. The Arizona Legislature, for example, sought to abolish the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, created by voter initiative. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded, in a 5‑4 decision, that the Commission was valid. Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting
Commission, 576 U.S. 787 (2015). But instead of initiating the suit, the State could have forced the Commission to sue—such as by defunding the Commission, or otherwise
interfering with its work. Under a per se standing rule, the Commission could never have brought the federal suit that ultimately vindicated the voters’ will.
B. The following issues and background
information are ripe for coverage in amicus
briefs.
In view of the examples above, we expect the Court will welcome coverage of the following issues and topics in amicus submissions:
1. An overview of the history and understanding of
Home Rule Cities. An overview of the history of charter cities in this country, their role in the doctrinal and practice differences between Home Rule and Dillon’s Rule, and how they differ from other political subdivisions such as traditional cities in having more independence from
- 7 -
state control. We anticipate the Court will be interested— as was the 9th Circuit panel here—to understand the
nature of the independence of a Charter City, or Home
Rule City, and whether that independence makes it akin to a “sovereign.”
2. The importance of continuing to respect state law
concerning its internal organization. The Court may
benefit from a historical discussion of how it has always looked to state law to determine the relationship between a local entity and a state. See, e.g., Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Doe, 519 U.S. 425, 429-30 (1997) (arm-of-the-state analysis for sovereign immunity); McMillian v. Monroe
Cty., 520 U.S. 781, 786 (1997) (analyzing state law to
determine § 1983 liability).
3. The importance to Political Subdivisions in
vindicating Fourteenth Amendment rights. The 9th
Circuit assumes that there is minimal importance in
recognizing any Constitutional rights vested in Political Subdivisions. The Court will benefit from a legal,
historical, and/or social treatment why this is wrong, and why, to the contrary, Political Subdivisions need to be able to file Equal Protection or Due Process claims when State singles out particular subdivisions for disparate treatment.
4. The need to protect School Districts when a State
forces them to adopt speech, curriculum, or
governance policies in conflict with local values.
This is especially critical in cases involving parental rights, gender identity, or compelled ideological speech in schools.
5. The risk of eroding First Amendment protections
when States impose symbolic speech mandates or
prohibitions on local governments. Shurtleff v. City of Boston, 596 U.S. 243 (2022), affirmed that municipal
flagpoles may become expressive forums. If States can
compel or suppress such expression without any possibility of federal judicial review, it invites widespread and
unchecked viewpoint discrimination.
- 8 -
6. The increasing use of punitive preemption statutes
that target local officials personally. Amici can
address the nationwide trend of “war on cities” laws that impose fines or removal for local legislative acts—raising serious First Amendment, Due Process, and structural
federalism concerns. Fried v. State, 355 So. 3d 899 (Fla. 2023), provides a timely example.
7. The national implications of denying federal
standing to independent commissions created under
state constitutions. As illustrated in Arizona State
Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm’n, 576 U.S. 787 (2015), redistricting or ethics commissions— intended to operate free from direct legislative control— may need to assert federal defenses when legislatures
attempt to defund or otherwise obstruct them. Amici could discuss how a per se standing bar would frustrate these voter-driven reforms.
8. The impact on federal constitutional jurisprudence
of asymmetrical standing rules across circuits. A per
se bar in the Ninth Circuit prevents cities and
commissions from ever bringing certain constitutional
challenges. As a result, cases arising in these jurisdictions will never be presented to the federal courts, distorting the geographic and doctrinal development of constitutional law nationwide.