Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota
No. 25-1017 · October Term 2026 · Civil Rights · argument December 8, 2026
Expected vote 6–3 for Republican National Committee. Chance of a unanimous ruling 42%.
Before oral argument the model knows only the case's structure: the issue area, which way the lower court ruled, and each justice's record on both. That is not enough to separate cases, so every unargued case carries the petitioner's base rate. The transcript features arrive within days of argument and the number becomes a call.
The case
The Republican National Committee is challenging a Ninth Circuit ruling that blocked Arizona from enforcing its laws requiring proof of U.S. citizenship for voter registration and from canceling non-citizen registrations close to an election. The lower court held that these Arizona laws were preempted by the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and a federal consent decree. The Supreme Court must now decide whether the NVRA or the consent decree prohibits Arizona's proof-of-citizenship requirement for state registration forms and its program to cancel non-citizen registrations within 90 days of a federal election.
- Whether the National Voter Registration Act or a federal consent decree prevents Arizona from requiring "satisfactory evidence" of U.S. citizenship for voter registration using a state form, which turns on the interpretation of federal election law and the binding nature of prior agreements.
- Whether the National Voter Registration Act's 90-day quiet period prohibits Arizona from implementing a program to cancel the registrations of non-citizens within that timeframe, which involves balancing state election integrity efforts against federal voter protection statutes.
AI brief written by gemini-2.5-flash from the questions presented and the Oyez facts on 2026-10-02. Commentary only; it is not an input to the model.
Question presented, as filed
Like every other State, Arizona permits only United States citizens to vote in federal elections. To enforce that qualification, Arizona requires every applicant who registers to vote to produce "satisfactory evidence of citizenship." Ariz. Rev. Stat. §16-121.01(C). If election officials obtain "information" from periodic inspections of Arizona's voter rolls that "confirms" a "person registered is not a United States citizen," they "cancel the registration." Id . §16-165(A) (10). The Ninth Circuit held that the National Voter Registration Act-52 U.S.C. §§20506(a)(6) (A)(ii), 20508(b)(1), 20507(c)(2)(a)-preempts those provisions of Arizona law. It also held that Arizona cannot require voter-registration applicants to produce proof of citizenship because in 2018, a previous Arizona Secretary of State entered a consent decree with private litigants. This Court has granted an emergency stay on each issue: One in this case and one in a Fourth Circuit case. The RNC raises both questions here on the merits. The questions presented are: (1) Does the National Voter Registration Act or a federal consent decree prohibit Arizona from requiring voter-registration applicants to produce "satisfactory evidence" of U.S. citizenship when registering with a state registration form? (2) Does the National Voter Registration Act prohibit Arizona from implementing a program within 90 days of a federal election to cancel the registrations of voters who are not U.S. citizens?
Facts of the case (Oyez)
Arizona has required U.S. citizenship as a qualification to vote since statehood in 1912. In 2004, Arizona voters passed Proposition 200, which required voter-registration applicants to provide satisfactory documentary proof of citizenship. That requirement reached the Supreme Court in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (2013), where the Court held the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) preempted Arizona’s demand that proof of citizenship accompany the federal voter-registration form, but the Court simultaneously recognized that state-developed registration forms may require information the federal form does not, including proof of citizenship. Seizing on that opening, Arizona’s legislature enacted H.B. 2492 and H.B. 2243 in 2022, which required applicants using the state registration form to submit documentary proof of citizenship (such as a birth certificate, passport, or driver’s license) and directed county recorders to reject state forms lacking that documentation. The 2022 laws also required county recorders to periodically cross-check citizenship databases and cancel the registrations of any individuals confirmed to be non-citizens. A separate wrinkle arose from a 2018 consent decree (the LULAC decree) in which a prior Arizona Secretary of State and the Maricopa County Recorder had agreed, without any finding of a federal violation, to register state-form applicants lacking proof of citizenship as either full-ballot or federal-only voters depending on whether citizenship could be confirmed through motor vehicle records. The district court retained jurisdiction over the LULAC decree only until December 31, 2020, and the decree bound only those two officials. Eight groups of plaintiffs—including the Democratic National Committee, the Arizona Democratic Party, the federal government, and several nonprofit organizations—filed consolidated pre-enforcement challenges to Arizona’s 2022 laws in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, arguing the laws violated the NVRA, the LULAC consent decree, the Civil Rights Act, and the Equal Protection Clause; the Republican National Committee intervened as a defendant. The district court ruled largely for plaintiffs, enjoining Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship requirement for state-form applicants (relying on the LULAC consent decree) and holding that the NVRA’s 90-day quiet period barred Arizona from systematically canceling noncitizen registrations within 90 days of a federal election. The RNC and Arizona legislative leaders appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the district court’s injunction in a divided panel opinion issued February 25, 2025, and denied rehearing en banc on September 22, 2025; the Supreme Court had previously granted a partial emergency stay allowing Arizona to enforce its proof-of-citizenship requirement for state-form applicants during the pendency of the litigation.
The nine
Each justice's predicted vote and the record behind it: how often they have voted for the petitioner overall, in Civil Rights cases, and when the lower court ruled liberal; and, once argued, how many questions they put to each side (the side a justice questions more tends to lose their vote). The note under each row is the AI brief's reading, commentary rather than model input.
| Justice | Predicted | Overall | This issue | Lower court liberal | At argument |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
John G. Roberts Republican appointee · since OT2005 Chief Justice Roberts often prioritizes state sovereignty in election administration, as seen in cases like Shelby County v. Holder, and may be inclined to uphold Arizona's efforts to ensure voter eligibility. His jurisprudence frequently emphasizes a textualist approach to statutory interpretation, which would focus on the precise language of the NVRA. | 66% Republican National Committee | 68% for the petitioner · 1,512 votes | 70% Civil Rights · 248 votes | 77% lower court liberal · 730 votes | not yet argued |
Clarence Thomas Republican appointee · since OT1991 Justice Thomas is a strong proponent of states' rights and a strict originalist, making him likely to favor Arizona's authority to set voter qualifications and enforce them. He has consistently expressed skepticism about federal overreach into state election processes. | 68% Republican National Committee | 59% for the petitioner · 2,801 votes | 57% Civil Rights · 464 votes | 77% lower court liberal · 1,344 votes | not yet argued |
Samuel A. Alito Republican appointee · since OT2005 Justice Alito generally favors state control over election procedures and has a record of upholding measures designed to prevent voter fraud. He is likely to scrutinize arguments that federal law or consent decrees unduly restrict state efforts to maintain accurate voter rolls. | 68% Republican National Committee | 62% for the petitioner · 1,469 votes | 65% Civil Rights · 244 votes | 79% lower court liberal · 699 votes | not yet argued |
Sonia Sotomayor Democratic appointee · since OT2009 Justice Sotomayor typically emphasizes protecting voting rights and access to the ballot, and she may be concerned about potential burdens on voters imposed by strict proof-of-citizenship requirements. She often considers the practical impact of election laws on minority groups and vulnerable populations. | 51% Republican National Committee | 61% for the petitioner · 1,192 votes | 61% Civil Rights · 192 votes | 48% lower court liberal · 560 votes | not yet argued |
Elena Kagan Democratic appointee · since OT2010 Justice Kagan often seeks a balance between federal and state interests, but her jurisprudence generally leans towards protecting voting access and upholding federal statutes designed to prevent voter disenfranchisement. She would likely give significant weight to the NVRA's purpose in facilitating voter registration. | 51% Republican National Committee | 63% for the petitioner · 1,072 votes | 60% Civil Rights · 171 votes | 51% lower court liberal · 495 votes | not yet argued |
Neil M. Gorsuch Republican appointee · since OT2016 Justice Gorsuch often adopts a textualist and originalist approach, which could lead him to interpret the NVRA narrowly and favor state authority where the federal statute does not explicitly preempt it. He has also shown a willingness to limit the scope of federal court power, which could impact the weight given to the consent decree. | 66% Republican National Committee | 65% for the petitioner · 592 votes | 70% Civil Rights · 99 votes | 75% lower court liberal · 278 votes | not yet argued |
Brett M. Kavanaugh Republican appointee · since OT2018 Justice Kavanaugh generally respects state authority in election administration but also acknowledges the role of federal law. He often looks to the plain meaning of statutes and may be persuaded by arguments that the NVRA does not explicitly prohibit Arizona's actions, particularly given the Court's previous recognition of state-specific registration forms. | 66% Republican National Committee | 69% for the petitioner · 498 votes | 64% Civil Rights · 83 votes | 77% lower court liberal · 235 votes | not yet argued |
Amy Coney Barrett Republican appointee · since OT2020 Justice Barrett's jurisprudence often emphasizes textualism and originalism, which would lead her to closely examine the language of the NVRA to determine the scope of federal preemption. She generally respects state sovereignty and may be inclined to uphold Arizona's laws if they are not clearly prohibited by federal statute. | 66% Republican National Committee | 66% for the petitioner · 360 votes | 72% Civil Rights · 61 votes | 76% lower court liberal · 168 votes | not yet argued |
Ketanji Brown Jackson Democratic appointee · since OT2022 Justice Jackson's jurisprudence often focuses on the practical implications of laws and the protection of civil rights, including voting rights. She would likely scrutinize any state law that could disproportionately impact certain groups of voters and would consider the intent and scope of the NVRA in ensuring broad access to the ballot. | 57% Republican National Committee | 59% for the petitioner · 244 votes | 47% Civil Rights · 38 votes | 38% lower court liberal · 108 votes | not yet argued |
Rates are each justice's own participation record in the Supreme Court Database, the same history the model trains on; a rate on fewer than five votes is not shown. The predicted vote is VotePredictor SCOTUS' per-justice probability from the served model, which also reads the bench-wide transcript signal and how long each side held the podium.
Every call this term, justice by justice · how the model is built and its record. Data as of 2026-10-02.