Sinema removed the lawsuit to federal court and then moved to dismiss by claiming that North Carolina did not have jurisdiction over her just because the guard (Matthew Ammel, who now lives in Arizona) and his family lived in the Tarheel State. The judge today found that jurisdiction was proper because Ms. Ammel felt the results of Ms. Sinema’s intentional conduct in NC, and that Sinema expressly aimed her conduct at the state.

Judge David Bragdon exhaustively went through Ms. Sinema’s conduct and the contradictions between her written declaration and her testimony while arriving at the 12 1/2 page decision that Ms. Ammel’s case against the former Senator will go on.

The Court finds Ms. Ammel credible in describing the existence of and context of the messages. Ms. Ammel’s testimony has been generally consistent and supported by corroborating evidence. In addition, Ms. Ammel has acknowledged facts that hurt her case. In contrast, Ms. Sinema’s testimony on several key matters has not been credible, with portions of her declaration contradicted by her testimony at the evidentiary hearing. Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, Exhibit A – Declaration of Kyrsten Sinema, ¶¶ 50–51, D.E. 14-1 (March 12, 2026). The Court also finds Ms. Sinema’s testimony that her relationship with Mr. Ammel involved only sex, that she did not flirt with him, and that she would not have sent messages when he was not with her to be implausible. (emphasis added)

The judge ended with another jab at Sinema, noting that it is not an imposition for her to defend the tort case in North Carolina: “Although Ms. Sinema resides in Arizona, she testified that she works in Washington, D.C., which is a 90-minute flight or a 5-hour drive from Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Furthermore, Ms. Sinema is an experienced traveler. If she can live in Arizona and work in Washington, D.C., it seems unlikely that a lawsuit in North Carolina would impose a burden.”

(For previous coverage and more details, please click here.)

Ammel V Sinema Order Denying Mtd 090426

377KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich.

“AZ Law” includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona’s Politics on the internet.

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here.

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

ICE gave its first 60-day update on its announced Detention Warehouse in Surprise this morning, and it suddenly appears to be proceeding verrrrry slowly. Under its Court-approved stipulation with Arizona (below), ICE agreed to conduct an Environmental Assessment before moving forward to convert the warehouse (in the northwestern Valley) or to detaining persons at it.

ICE tells the Court this morning that it “has retained a contractor to assist with the environmental review and has begun working with the contractor, including through an introductory meeting.”

The Arizona warehouse purchase/conversion was part of a $700M buying spree around the country, and it is one of only four that ICE has not given up on in the face of opposition. However, this new Surprise slow-walk may indicate an ICE pivot to other detention options, such as shipping people to third countries.

It appears that ICE has asked GardaWorld - the private company it has inked a $313M contract with to run the detention warehouse - to conduct the Environmental Assessment. The security contractor has no published experience conducting environmental reviews, and the status report makes it apparent that ICE has not asked the EPA or other federal agency for input.

GardaWorld is a private security contractor that has now expanded into the private prison area. It has now added building the private prisons and conducting environmental assessments on its building projects.

Arizona V Mullin Ice Status Report 090426

124KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Sources:

—City of Surprise: https://surpriseaz.gov/dhs-proposed-facility?contentId=282e48d7-aa37-41b5-85b7-e796609b61ed&mode=dialog

—U.S. web page on this federal contract: https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_70CDCR26FR0000043_7012_N0002325D0032_9700

This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich.

“AZ Law” includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona’s Politics on the internet.

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here.

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.Download

Judge Susan Brnovich dismissed the case as moot, because the legislative session - and, thus, the ban - ended in June. She also found that the Plaintiffs could not show that it was not moot because the same bans could or would happen to the same people every session. Petersen and Montenegro had argued that the LUCHA members refused to say that they would protest in the legislative buildings next year.

As often happens, Brnovich has given the Plaintiffs a chance to amend their Complaint to try to overcome the mootness issue.

Lucha V Petersen Dismissal Order 090226

181KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich.

“AZ Law” includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona’s Politics on the internet.

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here.

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This might lead Arizona to resume its criminal case against Kalshi - which has advertised itself as a sports betting platform that also allows users to place bets on other, non-sports events. The court remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings on the elections bets the platform hosts.

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes calls it a “significant win for states' authority to regulate gambling operations,” but has not announced whether her office’s state court criminal action against Kalshi will continue once the stay is removed. (That should occur within the next couple of weeks.)

Arizona filed a 20-count indictment against Kalshi in March after investigators placed several bets on the platform. In addition to betting on several Arizona-related sporting events, the investigators placed bets on whether Andy Biggs would win the GOP primary and the General Election for Governor, whether a Democrat (Adrian Fontes) would win the Secretary of State’s contest, whether the GOP would maintain control of the U.S. House of Representatives in 2026, and whether J.D. Vance would win the 2028 Presidential election. (The bets ranged from $1 to $30, and the indictment does not mention the hoped-for payouts.)

Kalshi V Nevada 9th Cir Opin 082826

367KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

* Arizona Judge Bridget Bade was part of the three-judge panel.

This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich.

“AZ Law” includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona’s Politics on the internet.

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here.

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

The 7Brew coffee chain appears to be the high bidder going into next week’s head-to-head auction with competitor Dutch Bros for many of the now-shuttered Salad & Go locations.

“I am not entirely comfortable with everything here,” said Bankruptcy Court Judge Alfredo Perez after a contentious 90-minute hearing Thursday setting up the auction procedures before the September 1 auction.

Salad & Go entered into a $105M deal with coffee chain Dutch Bros before filing its August 4 Chapter 11 bankruptcy, saying the deal to take over approximately 65 locations would fully pay all creditors.

7Brew - which has only two locations open in the Arizona market that Salad & Go was heaviest in - has opposed the pre-ordained deal that excluded them, and now has presented the higher bid for more of the Salad & Go leases. “Exclusivity is necessarily chilling,” 7Brew’s attorney told the judge in today’s hearing, and “we are looking forward to going to an auction.”

However, 7Brew strongly contested the notion that their bid may have to be $5M higher than Dutch Bros because of the termination fee that Dutch Bros and Salad & Go negotiated pre-Chapter 11.

For their parts, attorneys for both Salad & Go and Dutch Bros defended their efforts while complaining that 7Brew has been moving the goalposts by asking for different numbers of leases to be included in the auctions.

The pre-packaged deal had been for 65 leases, but the auction now appears to be for approximately 120-121 locations. Attorneys for a few of those locations chimed in that their locations should be excluded because they already have a Dutch Bros or Blackrock coffee hut in their shopping center and the leases do not permit a 2nd one.

Salad & Go’s attorney told the court he is attempting to put the locations into three tiers for the bidding process - premium locations, less valuable ones, and ones that “have nominal value” with liabilities that need to be paid. 7Brew claimed to not understand that effort, and the judge did not express an opinion.

Earlier coverage: (to be added)

This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich.

“AZ Law” includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona’s Politics on the internet.

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here.

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

The case before involved a Pastor discussing his child abuse allegations with his Co-Pastor/brother-in-law. After receiving testimony from them both at a hearing on whether or not to suppress evidence of the conversation, the Superior Court Judge found that it did not qualify for the privilege. The Court of Appeals reversed, but today’s opinion reinstates the fact-finding judge’s determination, and further defines when the privilege is applied.

Courts had already been considering whether the potential witness is a member of the clergy, whether the clergy was acting in that capacity, and whether the abuser’s comments were in conjunction with the religion’s disciplinary process. The Supreme Court now adds that the threshold step is whether or not it was a true “confession”. In this case, the men also discussed - the brother-in-law secretly recorded the conversation - the impacts on the church, logistics about how he might avoid law enforcement, and more.

A true confession must include admitting fault, and it must be made to seek spiritual forgiveness or guidance. Writing for the Court, Justice James Beene describes it this way:

A factfinder applying our definition does not

assess whether a communication satisfies any particular faith’s theological

requirements; it asks only whether the communication sought spiritual

absolution, consolation, or guidance. That question is factual—it asks what

the communication was for, not whether it complied with the tenets of any

religion—and it therefore does not implicate the constitutional concerns

identified in Doe.

The case will proceed towards trial in the Superior Court.

Here is the Court’s Opinion:

Rodriguez Ramirez V Arizona Cr250157pr

282KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich.

“AZ Law” includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona’s Politics on the internet.

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here.

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

The Senate Majority Leader (and candidate for AG) is using taxpayer funds to make the twisty argument.

Petersen Amicus To Save The Save Database

171KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

* There are many examples of parties/etc arguing different sides of the Purcell Principle in different cases. This one stands out because Heap is arguing against it *to make changes* to this ongoing election, and he is also seeking to use the SAVE database to make changes.

This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich.

“AZ Law” includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona’s Politics on the internet.

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here.

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

While playing for UA between 2020 and March 2023, Kriisa somehow borrowed money from “Victim-1”. In August 2022 (shortly before his final season in Tucson), he allegedly told her he had obtained a loan to repay her. Then, during the season in November, he allegedly told her that he would sell his organs to repay her. Kriisa continued to make up stories to get money from Victim-1 through 2024, pretending to be his mother who needed funds for cancer treatments or to save their farm in Estonia.

Kriisa, the starting point guard, left UA after the season came crashing to a halt in March 2023, transferring to other schools over the next couple of years. He started going after Victim-2 in 2025, after finishing his college basketball career at the University of Kentucky. The indictment is brought in West Virginia, where he played in 2023-24.

The indictment:

Kriisa Indictment

309KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich.

“AZ Law” includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona’s Politics on the internet.

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here.

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

ICE gave its first 60-day update on its announced Detention Warehouse in Surprise this morning, and it suddenly appears to be proceeding verrrrry slowly. Under its Court-approved stipulation with Arizona (below), ICE agreed to conduct an Environmental Assessment before moving forward to convert the warehouse (in the northwestern Valley) or to detaining persons at it.

ICE tells the Court this morning that it “has retained a contractor to assist with the environmental review and has begun working with the contractor, including through an introductory meeting.”

The Arizona warehouse purchase/conversion was part of a $700M buying spree around the country, and it is one of only four that ICE has not given up on in the face of opposition. However, this new Surprise slow-walk may indicate an ICE pivot to other detention options, such as shipping people to third countries.

It appears that ICE has asked GardaWorld - the private company it has inked a $313M contract with to run the detention warehouse - to conduct the Environmental Assessment. The security contractor has no published experience conducting environmental reviews, and the status report makes it apparent that ICE has not asked the EPA or other federal agency for input.

GardaWorld is a private security contractor that has now expanded into the private prison area. It has now added building the private prisons and conducting environmental assessments on its building projects.

Sources:

—City of Surprise: https://surpriseaz.gov/dhs-proposed-facility?contentId=282e48d7-aa37-41b5-85b7-e796609b61ed&mode=dialog

—U.S. web page on this federal contract: https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_70CDCR26FR0000043_7012_N0002325D0032_9700

Arizona V Mullin Ice Status Report 090426

124KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

(June 30) “BREAKING: DHS agrees to conduct full Environmental Assessment on proposed Surprise detention center, in order to get Arizona to hold off on its legal challenge”

Is the Trump Administration moving forward with its plans to turn a Surprise Arizona warehouse into a mega-ICE detention center, or is it slowly backing away?

In a surprise filing tonight, the Trump Administration has agreed to conduct an Environmental Assessment before moving forward with its proposed ICE detention facility in a Surprise, Arizona warehouse. In return, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes has agreed to hit “pause” on her lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security plan.

The case was filed in federal court back in April, and ICE’S deadline to respond was coming up in two weeks. On Tuesday night, the parties filed a “Joint Stipulated Motion to Stay Case and Defer Preliminary Injunction Briefing”. That Motion does not give the details, but the proposed Order lodged for Judge Susan Brnovich’s signature does.

It indicates that DHS has advised the AG’s Office that they now have a contract to do the required NEPA (the federal law known as “National Environmental Policy Act”) “analysis up to the level of an environmental assessment (EA) addressing the proposed retrofitting and use of the Surprise Facility as an immigration detention center and potential future work concerning the Surprise Facility.” They go on to agree that when and if the EA is done and ICE wants to move forward, the parties will meet and confer about the next steps in the lawsuit.

This agreement comes in the context of recent articles that ICE is abandoning its warehouse detention center plans in other cities around the country. An article in the New York Times detailed plans to get rid of - selling or handing off to other agencies - seven of the eleven proposed immigrant warehouses, and ICE told a judge in Michigan that it was selling its Romulus (Michigan) warehouse.

In that context, today’s Arizona agreement could be an indication that the Surprise facility is bucking the national trend, or it could be an effort by the Trump Administration to buy additional time to decide.

State V Mullin Proposed Stip Order

177KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

State V Mullin Jt Stip Motion To Stay

166KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich.

“AZ Law” includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona’s Politics on the internet.

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here.

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

In order of occurrence:

1. The day started early with the U.S. Supreme Court announcing that it will hear an appeal of a long-running lawsuit regarding Arizona’s 2022 law regarding Documentary Proof of Citizenship for voter registration and mail-in voting purposes.

   The RNC challenged two parts of the 9th Circuit’s ruling on the law: whether Arizona can require DPOC with the state’s voter registration form, and whether Arizona is permitted to purge a voter from the rolls within 90 days of an election if the fed’s database shows that they are not a citizen.

   The Court did not agree to consider the appeals and questions raised by AG Kris Mayes or GOP Legisative leaders Warren Petersen/Steve Montenegro.

   (The RNC’s Petition to SCOTUS is below.)

2. The Arizona Supreme Court followed with its long-awaited Opinion on a key challenge to the Stop Dark Money (aka “Voter’s Right To Know Act”) initiative passed by voters in 2022. The measure put disclosure requirements on the source’s of funds for large campaign independent expenditures. On a 4-3 vote, the Justices threw out almost all of the Center for Arizona Policy’s - not surprisingly, supported by dark money - broad challenge to the law. The only part of its challenge that will move forward in the trial court is whether the disclosure requirements chill a donor’s free speech rights (by making them afraid to give and be publicly identified).

   (The Arizona Supreme Court’s majority and dissenting Opinions are below.)

3. The Senate Ethics Committee released a letter dismissing a complaint against Arizona’s Sen. Ruben Gallego, saying their investigation did not find evidence of campaign finance violations or of sexual misconduct. As first reported by NBC News, the bipartisan committee all signed the dismissal of Republican Rep. Anna Luna’s complaint against her ex-colleague.

   (The Ethics Committee dismissal letter is below.)

4. The three-headed Maricopa County elections battle was briefed to the Arizona Supreme Court on Thursday (released today), and it is not looking good as voting has already begun for the July 21st primary (and municipal) election. Attorneys for the Board of Supervisors and for Recorder Justin Heap painted diametrically different pictures of how and whether the two can work together in this primary, and the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office - which has been shut out of representing either of the two sides - filed an amicus (i.e. non-party) brief explaining again why they should be representing the Recorder rather than an America First Legal attorney (who is a candidate for the State Legislature). The picture looks very much like there may be power battles in Vote Centers between the Recorder and Elections over who controls the sign-in (Site Books) area, because the Recorder’s “liaison” may disagree with the Elections “liaison” (and the site’s Inspector?) about how to get people who want to tabulate the early ballot they received in the mail verified and to the correct tabulators.

   (Personal note: as a long-time Inspector, I am ready to maintain control of my Vote Center FOR THE VOTERS and to knock some “liaison” heads together on July 21, if necessary.)

   BREAKING (3pm): The Justices have given the Board of Supervisors until Thursday to file an (additional) Response to Recorder Heap’s report.

   (The parties’ briefings to the Supreme Court are below.)

5. Finally (hopefully), all five of the separate lawsuits against five separate ballot referrals from the Legislature (see separate article from Friday) now have hearings on the schedule. The Protect the Vote lawsuit with Tempe City Councilmember Randy Keating as plaintiff challenges the Kolodin-led referral making many/significant changes to voting rights, election administration, campaign finance, etc. It had its initial hearing this morning (even though it was not on the calendar on Friday). And there will be an initial hearing tomorrow (10am) in the lawsuit challenging the Legislature’s referral to clamp down on public employees’ unions - especially the teacher’s union. The lawsuit is filed by both the Arizona Education Association and AFSCME (government employees).

RNC's Petition to SCOTUS re Arizona's DPOC law

400KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Scoa Opinion Cap V Azsos Re Vrka Cv240295pr 062926

673KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Gallego Ethics Committee Letter

462KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Asc Cv260189 6 25 2026 Filed Recorder's Supplemental Brief On Operational Issues For 2026 Primary Elections

598KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Asc Cv260189 6 25 2026 Filed Report Of The Maricopa County Board Of Supervisors Majority

438KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Asc Cv260189 6 25 2026 Filed Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell's Motion For Leave To File Brief As Amicus Curiae

161KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich.

“AZ Law” includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona’s Politics on the internet.

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here.

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

It is possible there may be additional challenges before the week is over, because the statute gives people ten days to file the suit after the Legislature sends the referral to the Secretary of State’s Office. The legislative session ended on the 13th and at least some referrals were received by SOS on the 15th.

We have just received the five Complaints filed so far. Here is a list of the basics, plus the actual Complaints. They are listed in the order they were filed:

1. Plaintiff: Will of the People, represented by Jim Barton. An initial hearing is set for June 30 in front of Judge Greg Como. Challenges HCR2003, “Protect Girls’ Sports in Arizona Act.

2. Will of the People, represented by Barton. A trial has been set for July 16 in front of Judge Julie Mata. Challenges HCR2044, purporting to amend Arizona Constitution to prohibit preferential treatment based on race, etc (“DEI”).

3. Protect Education Accountability Now/Save Our Schools, represented by Danny Adelman (AZ Center for Law in the Public Interest). Initial hearing on July 1 in front of Judge Joseph Kreamer. Challenges HCR2048, the referral attacking the citizen’s initiative that the plaintiffs are preparing to submit on July 2, by prohibiting a law that would sweep unused ESA funds from military families, etc.

4. Arizona Education Association/AFSCME, represented by Joshua Barro. Assigned to Judge Scott Blaney. Challenges HCR2040, which purports to limit public employee unions.

5. Randy Keating (Tempe City Councilman), represented by Jillian Andrews. Judge Christopher Whitten. Challenges HCR2001, which makes many/significant changes to voting rights, election administration, campaign finance, etc.

Keating Ballot Referral Complaint

378KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Will Of The People Edman Ballot Referral Complaint

516KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Aea Afscme Ballot Referral Complaint

1.82MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Will Of The People 1 Ballot Referral Complaint

1020KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Protect Educ Sos Ballot Referral Complaint

1.82MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich.

“AZ Law” includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona’s Politics on the internet.

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here.

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Former Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Scott Bales leads the list of Arizona signees on the complaint, and Arizona’s Law reached him for comment. His entire responses to our questions is below, but he focused on whether Blanche’s conduct shows that he understands his ethical duties when leading the Justice Department are to the country rather than to the President, and that Arizonans should care because the DOJ plays “a critical role in upholding our nation’s laws.

The other retired Arizona judges who stuck their necks out are Court of Appeals Judge Philip Toci, and Maricopa County Superior Court Judges Bethany Hicks, Sally Duncan, and Barry Schneider.

Blanche is also facing a tough row through the U.S. Senate, and this complaint will likely serve as a roadmap for Senators.

Bales’ complete response: “I joined the 100 other former judges in signing the ethics complaint because I believe it is vitally important that the Justice Department represent the interests of the United States, not the personal or political interests of the President. Mr. Blanche's conduct, as described in the complaint, raises serious questions whether he understands that distinction and has complied with his ethical duties as a lawyer. This matters to Arizonans because the Justice Department historically has played a critical role in upholding our nation's laws. The Attorney General leads the Department, with more than 40 components including the FBI and DEA, more than 115,000 employees, and offices in every state. The ethics complaint seeks to ensure that those leading the Justice Department conform to the high ethical standards that come with their positions.”

The full 73-page ethics complaint can be found here.

This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich.

“AZ Law” includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona’s Politics on the internet.

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here.

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Ascspecialactionbriefing 5932126 0

98.8KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich.

“AZ Law” includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona’s Politics on the internet.

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here.

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

*****

6/24: “Mark Lamb Might Want To Use Some of his Biggest Donor’s Product”: Mark Lamb is receiving significant campaigning help in his Republican primary battle - to replace Rep. Andy Biggs in Congress - from his own Super PAC called the “God Family Freedom PAC”. Forgetting the nearly nonexistent line between a candidate’s campaign committee and what is supposed to be an independent/non-coordinating Super PAC (which can accept unlimited contributions), his GFF PAC has spent more than $60,000 on direct mail and digital ads for Lamb, according to recent FEC filings.

The nation’s largest specialty fireproofing contractor - based in Apache Junction - has put $100,000 into the Super PAC and the owner (Robert Shippy) has put another $14,000 (double the legal limit) into Lamb’s campaign committee.

6/10: “The Plot Thickens: Is “Crush MAGA PAC” Simultaneously Playing in BOTH the CD1 Primary and General?”: Per our request, a tipster emailed us the two anti-Amish Shah mailers sent out by the “Crush MAGA PAC”. We have granted him/her anonymity because it turns out that they were received by a (verifiable) regular Republican voter. Either that is just poor targeting or Crush MAGA is playing in both the primary and the general - by actually touting Shah as a reasonable alternative to GOP voters. (It will be instructive to see if our tipster also receives the pro-Treble mailers, which presumably will encourage Democratic primary voters. Remember, Crush MAGA’s parent organization is actually endorsing Treble.) Watch this space.

6/9: “Crush MAGA Doubles Down Mailing For Treble”: Following up on its mailer(s) slamming Democratic front-runner Amish Shah, the Crush MAGA crowd has dropped $100,000 more on mailers supporting rival candidate Jonathan Treble. Their new FEC filing indicates that they have now dropped $191,663 in this swing district. No indication yet why they have chosen this district (and two in California) to focus on, but they have been completely fed on small (under $5,000) and super-small (under $200) contributions through April 30.

If you see any of their mailers - and most Dems and likely Independents should, given the price tag - please forward them on.

Crush Maga Ie For Treble 060726

230KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

6/4: We begin with a kinda odd one in the CD1 free-for-all. If I told you a Super PAC called “Crush MAGA” is sending out a mailer attacking one of the candidates, you would probably guess it was against Chaplik or Feeley. You would be wrong. Crush MAGA confirmed last night that it has dropped more than $90,000 on a mailer(s) attacking DEMOCRATIC front-runner Amish Shah.

Crush MAGA does not seem to be a dark money Super PAC, but it would appear from its filings that the money to jump into this 4-way Democratic primary was contributed after April 30 (its last filing cutoff).

The biggest hint seems to be from its “parent organization”: “Save Democracy 2026” has given an endorsement to Democratic challenger Jonathan Treble. Treble has already put more than $1.1M of his own money into his campaign committee, and has raised nearly $2.5M total.

Crush Maga Ie Vs Shah 202606039870364434

226KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

If you find a copy of Crush MAGA’s anti-Shah mailer, please email us a copy at Paul-dot-Weich-dot-AZlaw-at-gmail-dot-com.

This article was reported by Arizona’s Politics’ co-founder Paul Weich.

UPDATE, June 3: The Trump DOJ has decided to appeal the dismissal of its lawsuit to get Arizonans’ voter registration info from Secretary of State Adrian Fontes. The Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit comes five weeks after Judge Susan Brnovich - a Trump-nominated judge - dispatched the case, and after the DOJ argued its Michigan appeal (dismissed on similar grounds).

Us V Fontes Notice Of Appeal 060326

Download

ORIGINAL ARTICLE, April 28, “DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: Arizonans’ Voter Registration Info Does Not Need To Be Turned Over To Trump Admin”

Judge Susan Brnovich has dismissed the Trump Administration case against Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes with prejudice (meaning, it cannot be refiled). The U.S. sought Arizona’s statewide voter registration list (“SVRL”) to see if Arizona was complying with federal election laws. Fontes denied the requests and opposed the lawsuit, noting that he had the responsibility to protect Arizona voters’ private information - even from the federal government.

The ruling is similar to ones reached by judges in other states. Judge Brnovich cited the Michigan opinion. Essentially, those cases found that the SVRL is a unique document even though it is a compilation of voters’ registration documents, and that the federal laws do not require states to make the compilation available to the federal government.

Thanks for reading Arizona’s Law and Arizona’s Politics! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Brnovich concluded her 12-page order, “In short, the Attorney General fails to convince this Court to abandon Benson’s logic. Neither does the Attorney General otherwise convince this Court that the SVRL is a § 20701 document. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the Attorney General’s claim with prejudice because amendment would be legally futile.”

Us V Fontes Order Dismissing 042826

244KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Fontes and AZ AG Kris Mayes quickly put out this joint statement: “Today, Judge Susan Brnovich rightfully dismissed the Trump Administration’s lawsuit demanding Arizona hand over its statewide voter registration rolls to the federal government. That database contains the sensitive personal information of millions of Arizona voters — home addresses, dates of birth, and Social Security and driver’s license numbers. But the Court was clear: Title III of the Civil Rights Act does not authorize this demand. This is now the sixth federal court to reach the same conclusion. Arizona acted correctly in refusing this request, and today’s ruling vindicates that decision. Our offices will continue to defend the privacy of Arizona voters against federal overreach.”

BACKGROUND: This case was brought in Jan. by DOJ’s Civil Rights Division/Harmeet Dhillon. It was brought several months after similar cases elsewhere.



AZ is the 6th state to prevail, and the 2nd to find the law did not require the handover. The other 4 judges found that the DOJ had not articulated a valid reason for needing the SVRLs.

The Trump Admin has appealed at least three of its other losses.

This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich.

“AZ Law” includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona’s Politics on the internet.

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here.

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Judge re-opens the Trump v IRS "case" based on that Motion from 35 fmr federal judges, demands Trump file Response by 6/12, answer the charges that "the Court was 'victim of a fraud'", whether "Trump" and "IRS" are truly adverse parties, & if settlement was "deceptive".

One of the 35 retired federal judges moving to reopen Trump's "case" that led to the "settlement" is from Arizona. Judge David Duncan was a Magistrate on the bench for 17 years before retiring for health issues.

Arizona Rep. Greg Stanton (D-CD4) was one of the 92 Congresspeople who had filed an amicus just before the dismissal, urging the judge not to let Trump/IRS hide the “settlement” by dismissing.

LATER: The NY Times lede just now calls this a "striking turnabout" by the judge in the "case". I don't think that's fair to the judge just because she did accept the voluntary dismissal filed by Trump's atty.

At that point - despite the moments-B4-dismissal brief by Dem MOCs - there was nothing solid for her to hang her hat on in rejecting the dismissal. Wednesday's Motion by the retired judges gave her the basis for requiring Trump and/or IRS to address the issues.

Order:

Trump V Irs Order Reopening

156KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich.

“AZ Law” includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona’s Politics on the internet.

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here.

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

The District Court judge had granted Kelly an injunction in February forbidding Hegseth from reducing his retirement rank and pay. That decision is likely to stand.

Hegseth’s case was argued by John Bailey (counsel to the assistant AG in the Civil Division). He argued that the judges should not have to look at the Senator’s state of mind as much as they should consider the impact on current servicemembers.

Kelly’s attorney (Benjamin Mizer, from Arnold & Porter) told the panel that this was “textbook retaliation (by the government) against disfavored speech.”

The core of the government’s case is that Kelly is just as subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) as an active duty servicemember, even though he is retired. Soldiers are necessarily more limited on what they can say about orders they have received. The times that Judges Karen Henderson, Cornelia Pillard and Florence Pan appeared to corner Bailey had to do with examples at either end of a soldier’s service.

First, Bailey declined to agree that a young person receiving a draft notice “in their home” is subject to the UCMJ and loses their right to speak out against a war. Then at the end of the oral arguments, Bailey refused to say that Kelly needed to “discharge himself” and lose his retirement pay and rank before regaining his full First Amendment rights.

The judges’ frustrations were easy to hear through the audio livestream. The 45-minute argument can be listened to here.

Their opinion is forthcoming.

For further details and documents, and for past reporting on this case, please click here.

This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich.

“AZ Law” includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona’s Politics on the internet.

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here.

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Us V Fontes Notice Of Appeal 060326

283KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

ORIGINAL ARTICLE, April 28, “DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: Arizonans’ Voter Registration Info Does Not Need To Be Turned Over To Trump Admin”

Judge Susan Brnovich has dismissed the Trump Administration case against Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes with prejudice (meaning, it cannot be refiled). The U.S. sought Arizona’s statewide voter registration list (“SVRL”) to see if Arizona was complying with federal election laws. Fontes denied the requests and opposed the lawsuit, noting that he had the responsibility to protect Arizona voters’ private information - even from the federal government.

The ruling is similar to ones reached by judges in other states. Judge Brnovich cited the Michigan opinion. Essentially, those cases found that the SVRL is a unique document even though it is a compilation of voters’ registration documents, and that the federal laws do not require states to make the compilation available to the federal government.

Brnovich concluded her 12-page order, “In short, the Attorney General fails to convince this Court to abandon Benson’s logic. Neither does the Attorney General otherwise convince this Court that the SVRL is a § 20701 document. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the Attorney General’s claim with prejudice because amendment would be legally futile.”

Us V Fontes Order Dismissing 042826

244KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Fontes and AZ AG Kris Mayes quickly put out this joint statement: “Today, Judge Susan Brnovich rightfully dismissed the Trump Administration’s lawsuit demanding Arizona hand over its statewide voter registration rolls to the federal government. That database contains the sensitive personal information of millions of Arizona voters — home addresses, dates of birth, and Social Security and driver’s license numbers. But the Court was clear: Title III of the Civil Rights Act does not authorize this demand. This is now the sixth federal court to reach the same conclusion. Arizona acted correctly in refusing this request, and today’s ruling vindicates that decision. Our offices will continue to defend the privacy of Arizona voters against federal overreach.”

BACKGROUND: This case was brought in Jan. by DOJ’s Civil Rights Division/Harmeet Dhillon. It was brought several months after similar cases elsewhere.

AZ is the 6th state to prevail, and the 2nd to find the law did not require the handover. The other 4 judges found that the DOJ had not articulated a valid reason for needing the SVRLs.

The Trump Admin has appealed at least three of its other losses.

This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich.

“AZ Law” includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona’s Politics on the internet.

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here.

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

In so doing, the majority reversed the Court of Appeals and re-affirmed the centuries old common law doctrine of nullum tempus occurrit regi. For those of who do not know Latin, that means “time does not run against the king.” In this case, that refers to a public entity - even in a situation where the battle is between two public entities. (E.g. if King Charles slipped and fell today in the White House, he could wait to bring suit until after wannabe King Donald is out of office, without worrying about the latter’s statute of limitations defense.)

Background: In 2018, Chandler and the RWCD were in the middle of an 85-year contract for water deliveries to the city when RWCD notified Chandler that the contract was over. Chandler kept ordering water deliveries, but did not file suit until 2022. RWCD argued that the case should be dismissed because A.R.S. § 12-821 says any suits against public entities must be filed within one year. The Superior Court ruled for Chandler, but the Court of Appeals reversed.

Today, the majority opinion - authored by Justice James Beene - vacated the previous opinion and explained that the Legislature needed to expressly state that the one-year period was overruling the nullum tempus doctrine. Justice Beene concluded “In sum, § 12-821 and its predecessor statutes have coexisted with nullum tempus without any conflict for nearly a century. This is because § 12-821 is solely concerned with private-plaintiff actions against the state. There is nothing in § 12-821’s history that suggests it was expressly intended to abrogate the well-established nullum tempus doctrine.”

The sole dissenting justice was Clint Bolick, who points out how simple and clear the statute is. He further notes that this situation was not contemplated back when there was only one king at a time, and that the Legislature did not need to put any “magic words” into the statute of limitation in order for it to override the nullum tempus doctrine. Alas for him, he is but one of seven Justices.

Because the rest of the case was clear, the Superior Court is now instructed to enter judgment that the 2002 agreement between the two “kings” is still valid and enforceable, until 2086.

Chandler V Roosevelt Cv240267 Pr

260KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich.

“AZ Law” includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona’s Politics on the internet.

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here.

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Us V Fontes Notice Of Appeal 060326

283KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

4/28/26: Judge Susan Brnovich has dismissed the Trump Administration case against Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes with prejudice (meaning, it cannot be refiled). The U.S. sought Arizona’s statewide voter registration list (“SVRL”) to see if Arizona was complying with federal election laws. Fontes denied the requests and opposed the lawsuit, noting that he had the responsibility to protect Arizona voters’ private information - even from the federal government.

The ruling is similar to ones reached by judges in other states. Judge Brnovich cited the Michigan opinion. Essentially, those cases found that the SVRL is a unique document even though it is a compilation of voters’ registration documents, and that the federal laws do not require states to make the compilation available to the federal government.

Brnovich concluded her 12-page order, “In short, the Attorney General fails to convince this Court to abandon Benson’s logic. Neither does the Attorney General otherwise convince this Court that the SVRL is a § 20701 document. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the Attorney General’s claim with prejudice because amendment would be legally futile.”

Fontes and AZ AG Kris Mayes quickly put out this joint statement: “Today, Judge Susan Brnovich rightfully dismissed the Trump Administration’s lawsuit demanding Arizona hand over its statewide voter registration rolls to the federal government. That database contains the sensitive personal information of millions of Arizona voters — home addresses, dates of birth, and Social Security and driver’s license numbers. But the Court was clear: Title III of the Civil Rights Act does not authorize this demand. This is now the sixth federal court to reach the same conclusion. Arizona acted correctly in refusing this request, and today’s ruling vindicates that decision. Our offices will continue to defend the privacy of Arizona voters against federal overreach.”

BACKGROUND: This case was brought in Jan. by DOJ's Civil Rights Division/Harmeet Dhillon. It was brought several months after similar cases elsewhere.

AZ is the 6th state to prevail, and the 2nd to find the law did not require the handover. The other 4 judges found that the DOJ had not articulated a valid reason for needing the SVRLs.

The Trump Admin has appealed at least three of its other losses.

Us V Fontes Order Dismissing 042826

244KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

**************************

A federal judge today ruled that Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes can properly represent Arizonans in court against a Trump Administration subpoena for information on every registered voter in the state. Judge Susan Brnovich denied the motions to intervene in the case by the Common Cause (represented by ACLU) and the Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans (Elias Law Group and Coppersmith Brockelman).

Brnovich found that neither proposed intervenor made a compelling case as to why voters would need anyone other than Secretary of State Fontes (represented by AG Kris Mayes’ attorneys) representing their privacy interests against the subpoena.

Arizona has already filed a Response to the DOJ’s Motion to Compel Production, as well as a Motion to Dismiss the case. The DOJ is on the clock to reply.

This afternoon’s ruling came as news was spreading about Arizona State Senate President Warren Petersen sharing data from the Senate’s “audit” of the 2020 Presidential election. The two seemingly separate stories are both part of the Trump Administration’s efforts to clamp down on elections in 2026 and 2028.

Us V Fontes Order Denying Intervention 030926

236KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich.

“AZ Law” includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona’s Politics on the internet.

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here.

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.