Ex Parte Collins

Background

Collins, a property owner whose land abuts a Phoenix street, sued the City of Phoenix and a private contractor to stop a street‑paving project paid for by assessments on abutting property under Arizona statutes (Civil Code 1913 and Session Laws 1919). Collins argued the statutes do not provide a proper hearing and thus violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process guarantee. District Judge Jacobs denied Collins’s request to convene two additional judges under §266 and denied a temporary injunction. Collins then sought leave to file a petition in this Court asking for a writ of mandamus to require a three‑judge hearing.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether §266 — the law that requires three judges and special notice to the Governor and Attorney General — applied to this case. Relying on the statute’s history and prior decisions, the Court held §266 is meant for cases challenging the enforcement or operation of state statutes or orders of state boards that have broad, statewide importance. The Court explained that suits limited to municipal actions or local improvements are not the kind of cases §266 was meant to cover. Because the petitioner sought to stop a municipal resolution implementing an enabling statute, the Court concluded §266 did not apply and denied leave to file the mandamus petition.

Real world impact

The decision leaves single district judges able to decide temporary injunctions in local municipal improvement disputes and limits use of three‑judge panels to broader statewide or especially important challenges. The ruling is procedural and does not resolve the underlying constitutional claim on the merits; it only declines the special three‑judge procedure here.