Well, the Ninth Circuit just handed the Left a ruling it badly wanted to avoid.

An 11-judge en banc panel has cleared the way for Arizona to enforce two election-law provisions that progressive groups have fought since 2022.

The decision is a major win for Arizona’s authority to maintain accurate voter rolls and police illegal voting. It also delivers a broader warning to activist organizations trying to turn political opposition into automatic standing to sue.

There is one important legal detail up front: this fight concerned a preliminary injunction. The Ninth Circuit did not finally resolve every claim in the lawsuit.

It did vacate the order that had blocked enforcement and sent the case back to the district court.

ADVERTISEMENT

In practical terms, Arizona can now move forward with the two challenged provisions while the litigation continues.

The Ninth Circuit’s published opinion addresses two pieces of Arizona Senate Bill 1260. The 11-judge panel filed its controlling en banc decision on August 7 after rehearing a 2024 panel ruling.

The first is the Cancellation Provision. It requires a county recorder to cancel a person’s registration in that county only after receiving confirmation or verifying credible information that the person registered in another Arizona county.

The second is the Felony Provision. It makes it a crime to knowingly provide a voting mechanism to someone registered to vote in another state, putting deliberate conduct at the center of the offense.

The law gives forwarding an early ballot to an out-of-state registrant as a concrete example of the prohibited conduct.

Senate Bill 1260 became law in June 2022. The three organizations filed suit that August, before the challenged provisions took effect.

They secured the injunction from Chief District Judge G. Murray Snow.

A three-judge Ninth Circuit panel first vacated that injunction in September 2024. The full court then reheard the case en banc and issued Friday’s controlling decision after oral arguments in June 2025.

The Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans, Voto Latino, and Priorities USA sued, arguing that the provisions interfered with voter-registration and voter-education work. A federal district court granted them a preliminary injunction.

ADVERTISEMENT

The full Ninth Circuit has now vacated that injunction, but it reached the result differently for each provision.

On the cancellation rule, the court held that the organizations had not shown the concrete injury required for Article III standing. Their claims about disrupted voter-registration work were too speculative, and spending resources to oppose or educate people about a law did not manufacture an injury.

That conclusion carried consequences far beyond one Arizona statute.

The en banc court expressly overruled parts of several Ninth Circuit precedents that had allowed organizations to establish standing through a broad combination of frustrated mission and diverted resources.

The majority said those older cases could not survive the Supreme Court’s newer standing analysis.

The ruling also preserves a sharp distinction between opposing a law and being personally injured by it. Political advocacy, public education, and money spent reacting to a policy may be real work, but the court held that those choices do not automatically create a federal case.

The organizations did clear the lower standing threshold for a pre-enforcement challenge to the felony provision. Because the phrase “mechanism for voting” could arguably reach their activity, the court found a credible enough threat of prosecution to let that part of the challenge proceed.

But standing was not enough.

The court held that the challengers were unlikely to win on the merits. Read in context, the felony provision targets instruments used to cast a vote, such as a ballot and its affidavit envelope.

ADVERTISEMENT

It likely does not criminalize helping someone register or explaining the voting process.

That distinction knocked out the second half of the preliminary injunction.

The official text of Arizona’s 2022 law shows exactly what the Legislature enacted. County recorders must confirm the newer registration before canceling the older county registration, while the felony provision applies to a person who knowingly provides a voting mechanism to someone registered in another state.

In other words, the statute does not authorize county officials to erase a registration on a hunch. Confirmation is built into the cancellation process.

The enacted law also directs the recorder receiving the new registration to notify the recorder in the voter’s former county. The older registration is then removed only after the new county registration is confirmed.

For the felony provision, knowledge matters. The statute is aimed at deliberately facilitating voting by someone registered elsewhere, not at ordinary registration drives or general election education.

That statutory context is why the court rejected the challengers’ broad reading of the phrase “mechanism for voting.” The judges concluded that the surrounding language points to the materials used to cast a ballot, not every form of assistance connected to an election.

The legal engine behind the Ninth Circuit’s ruling was the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine.

That unanimous Supreme Court decision rejected the idea that an organization can establish standing simply by spending money to oppose a government policy. The organization must show that the challenged action directly affects and interferes with its existing core activities.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Ninth Circuit applied that rule here and concluded that its own older precedents had gone too far.

The Supreme Court had treated the organizational-standing theory as narrow, not a blank check for advocacy groups to sue whenever they redirect staff time or money. Friday’s en banc ruling turns that instruction into binding law across the Ninth Circuit.

The court divided 6-5, and the judges still sparred over how aggressively the circuit should sweep away its old organizational-standing doctrine.

Judge Daniel Bress, joined by four other judges, agreed with the result but argued that the majority had not fully embraced the Supreme Court’s reasoning. Judge Lawrence VanDyke separately urged the circuit to loosen the rule that forces three-judge panels to follow older circuit precedent unless a later Supreme Court ruling is clearly irreconcilable with it.

Those internal disagreements did not change the bottom line.

Arizona’s county-to-county registration cancellation process is no longer blocked. The state may also enforce the felony provision against knowingly giving a voting mechanism to someone registered in another state.

And activist organizations across the Ninth Circuit now face a tougher question before getting into federal court: what did the law actually do to them?

For Arizona, that is a significant election-integrity victory. For the Ninth Circuit, it is a serious course correction.

The full en banc ruling is linked above directly from the Ninth Circuit.

This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here.

 

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.