Article III standing." Doc. 14 at 2. Following briefing and oral argument, theCourt certified a question to the California Supreme Court, noting that it"request[ed] clarification in order to determine whether [it has] jurisdiction todecide this case."
at 8. With certification of that issue, the Court made plainthat the Proponents have not to date met their burden to establish this Court'sjurisdiction. As a result, they are not entitled to a continuing stay of the districtcourt's judgment."Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause."
, 7 Wall. 506, 514 (1868). "'The requirement that jurisdiction beestablished as a threshold matter 'spring[s] from the nature and limits of the judicialpower of the United States' and is 'inflexible and without exception.'"
Steel Co. v.Citizens for a Better Environment
, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1998) (quoting
Mansfield,C. & L.M.R. Co. v. Swan
, 111 U.S. 379, 382 (1884)). Thus, "[f]or a court topronounce upon the meaning or the constitutionality of a state or federal law whenit has no jurisdiction to do so is, by very definition, for a court to act ultra vires."
. at 101-02. Here, because this Court's jurisdiction has not been establishedindeed, turns on an unsettled question of California lawthe Court cannot issue anorder resting on an evaluation of the parties' relative likelihood of success on themerits, as a stay order necessarily does.As this Court explained in
Brewer v. Lewis
, 989 F.2d 1021, 1025 (9th Cir.1993), "[a] grant of a stay is an exercise of judicial power, and [federal courts] arenot authorized to exercise such power on behalf of a party who has not firstestablished standing."
, 495 U.S. at 737 ("before granting astay, . . . federal courts must make certain that an adequate basis exists for theexercise of federal power.");
Dennis ex rel. Butko v. Budge
, 378 F.3d 880, 895 (9thCir. 2004) ("As [the petitioner] lacks standing, we also lack jurisdiction to stay the
Case: 10-16696 02/24/2011 Page: 3 of 5 ID: 7659531 DktEntry: 307-1