By Staff Reporter |
An attorney with America First Legal (AFL), the nonprofit created by President Donald Trump’s policy chief Stephen Miller, is running for a seat in the Arizona House.
AFL senior counsel James Rogers is gunning to represent LD10. For the past five years he has been in court challenging faulty election processes and other red-meat Republican issues. With that history heavily promoted, Rogers campaigns as one with the potential to be the foremost election integrity expert in the legislature.
Rogers’ platform also focuses on what he calls “straightforward” conservative issues: affordability to encourage family growth, election integrity, purging gender ideology from schools, protecting the unborn, stopping illegal immigration, and defending gun ownership rights.
Since Republican State Rep. Ralph Heap won’t be returning to represent LD10 — he’s running for the Arizona Corporation Commission — Rogers and State Rep. Justin Olson are running together as a slate.
There’s a third Republican candidate in the mix: Ciara Anderson, who moved to Arizona in 2021 from Washington state. Anderson has served as a Republican precinct committeeman and LD10 executive board member, and founded a mothers-focused coalition through Turning Point Action.
Two are running on the Democratic side: Brian Calaway and Helen Hunter. The No Labels party has one candidate: David Scott.
Rogers, a sixth-generation Arizonan, takes credit for drafting key Republican-led legislation like Proposition 314, the Secure the Border Act approved by voters in the 2024 election. The law criminalized illegal migration into the state and gave the state authority to act on immigration matters: state and local law enforcement may arrest illegal aliens, and state judges may order deportations.
A similar law in Texas, Senate Bill 4, has been challenged in federal court and would determine the fate of Arizona’s law. So far, Texas’s law has withstood legal challenges.
Rogers was senior litigation counsel at the solicitor general’s office for former Attorney General Mark Brnovich during the COVID-19 pandemic, 2021 to 2022. In that time, Rogers led on lawsuits against former President Joe Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine mandates and border policies.
Prior to serving under Brnovich, Rogers was a foreign service officer with the State Department from 2015 to 2021. According to his April 2025 testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee Subcommittee on Oversight and Intelligence, Rogers endured retaliation for whistleblowing.
Rogers alleged that State Department leadership ignored Trump on policy to more thoroughly vet visa applicants during his first term, but that he complied and was punished for it through a denial of tenure. Rogers also reported that his rate of problematic visa issuances, such as overstays, was more than 50% lower than his colleagues’ while following the directive of Trump rather than his supervisors.
Rogers estimated that the number of visa overstays was two to four times higher than it would have been had State Department leadership complied with Trump’s orders.
“[T]he malfeasance of State Department consular managers during that time likely caused 900,000 to 1.4 million extra overstays that were easily avoidable. Most foreigners who overstay their visas do so with the intent of illegally immigrating and remaining in the United States long-term,” said Rogers. “To put that in perspective, ten U.S. states have populations of 1.4 million or less. In other words, consular managers working to subvert President Trump’s policies managed to add an entire state population’s worth of illegal aliens in just four years.”
Since joining AFL in 2022, Rogers has led on cases challenging the Biden administration, such as the alleged diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) discrimination that occurred within the federal government.
Rogers also testified before the House Judiciary Committee last March to discuss court-ordered immigration policy made through the landmark Supreme Court case Plyler v. Doe (1982), which determined that states must permit children of illegal aliens to attend public school. Rogers argued that the decision was wrong, and that the legal framework used by the Supreme Court to overrule Roe v. Wade through Dobbs v. Jackson could be applied to overrule Plyler v. Doe.
“The Court’s role is to interpret the Constitution, not to serve as a policymaking body filling in the gaps left by legislative inaction,” said Rogers. “Where the Constitution’s text, history, and precedent all point in the same direction — and where the Court’s own analytical concessions compel application of a standard under which the challenged law would clearly survive — the Court must follow the law, not its own policy preferences.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
