Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 9371034
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Constitution Association, Inc. v. Kamala Harris
No. 9371034 · Decided January 26, 2023
No. 9371034·Ninth Circuit · 2023·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
January 26, 2023
Citation
No. 9371034
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 26 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION, INC., by No. 21-56287
its founders; GEORGE F.X. ROMBACH,
D.C. No. 3:20-cv-02379-TWR-
Plaintiffs-Appellants, BLM
and
MEMORANDUM*
B. GREEN; et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
KAMALA D. HARRIS,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Todd W. Robinson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2023**
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
George F.X. Rombach and Constitution Association, Inc. appeal from the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
district court’s judgment dismissing their action challenging Kamala Harris’s
eligibility to serve as Vice President. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(h)(3) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co.
v. Team Equip., Inc., 741 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ action because plaintiffs
lacked standing. See Drake v. Obama, 664 F.3d 774, 782 (9th Cir. 2011)
(dismissing a voter’s claim that President Obama was ineligible for the office
because the plaintiff asserted nothing “more than a generalized interest of all
citizens in constitutional governance” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)); see also Am. Diabetes Ass’n v. United States Dep’t of the Army, 938
F.3d 1147, 1154-55 (9th Cir. 2019) (setting forth the requirements to establish
organizational standing).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 21-56287
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 26 2023 MOLLY C.
Key Points
01NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 26 2023 MOLLY C.
02COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION, INC., by No.
033:20-cv-02379-TWR- Plaintiffs-Appellants, BLM and MEMORANDUM* B.
04Robinson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 18, 2023** Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 26 2023 MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Constitution Association, Inc. v. Kamala Harris in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on January 26, 2023.
Use the citation No. 9371034 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.