The original lawsuit was filed by Robert Barnes on behalf of Ralph Nader, Peter Camejo, Donald N. Daien, and Kendle H. Greenlee against Jan Brewer in her official capacity as Secretary of State of Arizona.

[2] The plaintiffs challenged two provisions of Arizona's ballot laws: The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard the case on April 15, 2008, and issued its 3-0 ruling on July 9, 2008.

Judge Mary M. Schroeder wrote the opinion of the court, holding that both Arizona laws were not narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest, and were therefore unconstitutional.

In early December 2008, the Montana Attorney General's office announced that it intended to file an amicus curiae brief on the side of the Arizona law that the 9th circuit invalidated.

[12]Judge Schroeder also wrote in the decision that Arizona "did not meet its burden of showing that this residency requirement is narrowly tailored to further the state's compelling interest in preventing fraud."

Nader's attorney, Robert Barnes, argued that Arizona's interest in locating a petitioner for the legal service of a subpoena after the petition drive is over can be satisfied by the less restrictive solution of requiring circulators to agree to testify if needed.

The attorney for the state was unable to give any examples of a statewide independent (for office other than president) who has qualified since 1993.Judge Mary Schroeder asked if the restrictions imposed on Oregon circulations and upheld by the Ninth Circuit in Prete v. Bradbury had relevance here.