Cited by

of Regents, ¶ 11 (2007) (stating that a controversy is a “nonjusticiable” political question where there is “a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it” (quoting Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224, 228 (1993))).

of Regents, ¶ 11 (2007)).

of Regents, ¶ 11 (2007) (quoting Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224, 228 (1993)).

of Regents, ¶ 12 (2007).

of Regents, ¶ 21 (2007) (we do not substitute our “subjective judgment of what is reasonable under all the circumstances for that of the .

of Regents , , 192 ¶¶ 11-12, , 170 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Nixon v. United States , 506 U.S. 224 , 228, 113 S.Ct.

of Regents, ¶ 22 , vacated on other grounds, , (quoting Rateree v. Rockett, 630 F.Supp.

of Regents, -93 ¶ 12, -71 (2007).

of Regents, ¶ 12 , (quoting Ariz. Const, art. 3).

of Regents, , 192-93 ¶¶ 11-12, -71 (2007).

of Regents, ¶ 12 , (citing Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 210-11 , 82 S.Ct.

of Regents, ¶ 24 , (supreme court specifically declined to hold that all funding decisions by other branches of government are insulated from judicial review) (internal quotation and citation omitted); , (supreme court interpreted inten

of Regents, -94, ¶¶ 13, 21 , -72 (2007) (university tuition is a “nonjusticiable political question” because it is “entrusted to branches of government other than the judiciary” and there are “no judicially discoverable and manageable standards” for measuring constitutionality).