A Pima County sheriff is accused of delaying an investigation into an alleged sexual assault of a female deputy, prompting community outcry.
Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos reportedly put the investigation into the incident “on hold.”
A female deputy accused her supervisor, Ricardo Garcia, of sexual assault following a party at his residence last December. A hospital rape kit confirmed the presence of Garcia’s DNA on the victim. Garcia was arrested in January and subsequently fired.
Last month, the deputy filed a $900,000 claim against Garcia and Pima County. The deputy filed a formal complaint alleging that her chain of command were aware of her being sexually assaulted that December night, and refused to intervene for over 80 minutes.
“Defendants and the Pima County Sheriff’s Department conducted themselves in a manner, in their individual or official capacities that clearly violated the established rights of the deputy,” stated the claim. “Their actions caused and/or contributed to serious ongoing, and likely permanent injuries sustained by the deputy that resulted in her assault and rape, and the mismanagement of the following investigation.”
Wintesses report Ricardo Garcia, Pima County Sheriff’s Deputy, sexually assaulted a female deputy at his house party last Saturday. No charges filed & he's on admin leave with pay. Did we mention there are witnesses?
The Pima County Deputy’s Organization (PCDO) issued a statement expressing outrage at Nano’s actions.
“Sheriff Nanos failed to launch his own investigation in the months that followed to determine why her Lieutenant, Captain, and Chief allowed her to continue to be assaulted,” stated PCDO. “Her Lieutenant even responded to the location and stood outside, doing nothing, while she was assaulted inside for over an hour.”
PCDO added that the suspect and the chief, Joseph Cameron, were “well-known friend(s),” and questioned why Cameron was transferred to oversee Internal Affairs after the incident.
“Was there an attempt to cover up their involvement or complicity in the aftermath?” asked PCDO. “We at the Pima County Deputy’s Organization are outraged that Sheriff Nanos has failed to investigate the serious misconduct amongst his own command that allowed the prolonged sexual assault of a deputy.”
Cameron’s profile on the Pima county Sheriff’s Office website stated that his leadership style is the Golden Rule: “treat others the way you want to be treated.”
Sheriff Nanos delays deputy's request for investigation into command misconduct. Our statement: pic.twitter.com/HFMESqpvTn
Just months before the sexual assault incident, Nanos endorsed Gov. Katie Hobbs’ candidacy and was featured in one of her campaign videos. Nanos, a registered Democrat, has been dismissive of the ongoing border crisis.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ-08) is questioning why the Capitol wasn’t secured during the Jan. 6, 2021 breach.
Lesko posed the question in response to an interview aired last month by former Fox News host Tucker Carlson on his newer, independent show platformed by X (formerly known as Twitter). Tucker interviewed the Capitol Police Chief at the time of the Jan. 6 breach of the Capitol, Steven Sund. Fox News never aired the original interview with Carlson, which occurred in April.
“Why wasn’t [the] Capitol secured on Jan. 6?” asked Lesko. “Tell all from Capitol Chief of Police…”
🚨MUST WATCH: Why wasn't Capitol secured on Jan. 6? Tell all from Capitol Chief of Police… https://t.co/wAU6lgcW6q
In an interview just shy of an hour long, Sund painted a picture of intentional neglect to properly secure the Capitol by federal intelligence, Congress, and military leadership.
U.S. Capitol Police has its own intelligence agency, Intelligence Agency Intelligence Coordination Division (IIACD), which coordinates with other intelligence agencies. Sund said that all intelligence he received indicated that the planned Jan. 6 protest would be “just like the other MAGA rallies” that occurred in November and December, with “limited skirmishes” involving Antifa and Black Lives Matter (BLM).
However, Sund said the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the military had intelligence not received by Capitol Police, such as planned attacks on Congress and violence against police officers.
Federal reports assessing the government preparation and response to the Jan. 6 breach are linked below, and arranged in order from oldest to newest:
Sund said neither the FBI or DHS put out a single official document specific to Jan. 6, which he said was unusual. Sund reported that normally one or both agencies would issue briefings addressing anticipated dangers, such as a Joint Intelligence Bulletin (JIB). None were issued ahead of the incident, as noted by the Senate Rules Committee. It was only after the attack that the intelligence agencies issued a JIB about potential future attacks inspired by the Jan. 6 events.
The GAO put together a timeline of open source data that government agencies collected concerning planned attacks on the Capitol months prior to Jan. 6.
On Jan. 5, the day before the attack, Sund said he had a conference call with then-chief of police at the Metropolitan Police Department, Robert Contee; then-assistant director of the FBI Washington Field Office, Steve D’Antuono; then-commander of the Army Military District of Washington, Omar Jones; then-commanding general of the D.C. National Guard, William Walker. Sund said not one person on the call expressed concerns about any threats of violence at the Capitol. DHS was absent from the call.
A Senate committee report released in July revealed that intelligence agencies repeatedly ignored planned threats of violence concerning Jan. 6. Some of those threats were addressed in emails to D’Antuono leading up to the attack. Yet, Sund said D’Antuono said nothing about those warnings.
Sund said that he wasn’t the only police chief in the dark, citing Contee as another leader who didn’t receive notifications on potential dangers, like the Norfolk memo. That Situational Information Report (SIR) from the Norfolk division of the FBI warned of the potential for violence in connection to the planned Jan. 6 rally. Wray told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he never read the memo.
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley and Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller discussed locking down the city and revoking permits on Capitol Hill, according to Sund. Sund said he never received requests to revoke the permits, though that was under his purview.
“Instead, on Jan. 4, what does Miller do? He puts out a memo restricting the National Guard from carrying various weapons, any weapons, any civil disobedience equipment that would be utilized for the very demonstrations or violence that he sees coming. It just doesn’t make any sense,” said Sund. “When I was calling begging for assistance on Jan. 6, they weren’t allowed to respond at first.”
Sund said the CPB denied him federal resources twice due to “optics” and “because the intelligence didn’t support” his requests. The CPB included Paul Irving, House Sergeant of Arms, who responded directly to former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Mike Stenger, Senate Sergeant of Arms, who responded directly to Minority Senate Leader Mitch McConnell, at the time.
“Even when we’re under attack, I have to go to those same two people to request the National Guard to be brought in,” said Sund.
The third and final member of the CPB is the Architect of the Capitol. From 2020 until February, that was Brett Blanton. President Joe Biden fired Blanton in February over extensive allegations of misconduct detailed in an inspector general report last year. Blanton told investigators that wasn’t at the Capitol on Jan. 6 because he was working remotely that day; Blanton further stated that neither he nor his staff spoke with Capitol Police about a request for an emergency declaration or National Guard support in advance of the Capitol breach.
Sund recounted the key timeline of that fateful day.
According to Sund, there were at least 150-180 National Guard members in the Capitol at law enforcement’s disposal, many within eyesight of the Capitol. The Capitol was breached at 12:53; by 12:55, Sundcalled the Washington, D.C. police department and spoke with Jeff Carroll for help. At 12:58, he called Sergeant Arms asking for additional assistance from the military. Irving said he would “run it up the chain,” implying Pelosi. The law allows Irving to make the decision himself in an emergency situation, such as that which occurred Jan. 6.
Stenger also deferred to Irving when Sund called. Over the next 71 minutes, Sund reported calling 32 people for help, including 17 police agencies. 11 of those calls were follow-up calls to Irving. After all that time, Irving finally issued approval for federal assistance.
We know that the President of the United States incited this insurrection – this armed rebellion – against our American democracy. He must go. pic.twitter.com/pIxOv2hOQv
Irving testified to the Senate in 2021 that he disagreed with Sund’s recollection. Sund said that testimony almost didn’t happen. When the Senate initially issued its call for testimony, it reportedly asked for only current security employees — which would’ve excluded Irving, Stenger, and Sund. Those three men were at the top of the security apparatus on Jan. 6. It wasn’t until Sund contacted the rules committee to ask to testify that the three men were included.
To date, Irving has never explained why it took him 71 minutes to obtain permission to deploy federal assistance that day. He resigned promptly after Jan. 6, and he is retired according to his LinkedIn, where he was last active at least seven months ago. Stenger passed away last June.
Pelosi, the head of Irving’s chain of command, was exempted from congressional inquiries into Jan. 6; Rep. Bennie Thompson effectively said that there was no need to look into Pelosi.
“Bennie Thompson said there is only one request: Nancy Pelosi is off limits…Shouldn't the very first question be, why was the Capitol so ill-prepared that day?" – @GOPLeader on Pelosi's illegitimate partisan witch-hunt👇 pic.twitter.com/xTKBH9txw2
The day after the Jan. 6 incident, there appeared to be a lockstep effort to assign blame for the Capitol invasion on Sund.
Pelosi called for Sund’s resignation, and falsely claimed that Sund hadn’t contacted her since the Capitol invasion. Yet, Sund spoke with Pelosi on the evening of Jan. 6.
Then, the intelligence agencies told mainstream media outlets through anonymous sources that Capitol Police turned down federal resources in the days leading up to Jan. 6.
Sund resigned after the Jan. 6 incident; in January, Sund released a memoir, “Courage Under fire: Under Siege and Outnumbered 58 to 1 on January 6,” detailing the events of that day.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Republican lawmakers are warning the Flagstaff City Council that their proposed ban on firearms ads would be unconstitutional and unlawful.
In a letter obtained by AZ Free News, State Reps. David Marshall (R-LD07), Leo Biasucci (R-LD30), and Quang Nguyen (R-LD1) told the council that the ban presented multiple constitutional concerns such as viewpoint discrimination and would violate state law, citing A.R.S. §13-3108.
“We trust that you realize, however, that the draft policy has nothing to do with ‘violence’ or ‘antisocial behavior.’ As written, the draft policy raises a host of constitutional concerns, including viewpoint discrimination,” said the lawmakers.
Flagstaff is set to vote today on a new radical ad policy discriminating against firearms-related speech. I joined my @AZHouse colleagues @DaveMarshallAZ and @Leo4AzHouse in calling out its potential constitutional violations and likely breach of state law. #1A#2Apic.twitter.com/cBWUBsgaTP
State Rep. John Gillette (R-LD30) agreed with his fellow lawmakers’ assessment of the policy.
“This can’t stand, what is repugnant to the Constitution should be void,” said Gillette.
During the meeting, Councilmember Lori Matthews said that firearms-related businesses should still be allowed to advertise, and proposed more specific restrictions on depictions of violence rather than banning all display of firearms in general.
“I feel uncomfortable thinking we would turn off a whole industry,” said Matthews.
Councilmember Jim McCarthy compared massage parlors, marijuana and cigarette shops to firearms, saying that none of those business owners were complaining of their inability to advertise. McCarthy claimed that the firearms-related businesses wouldn’t be hurt by this policy.
“This will have no effect on the operation of any of these businesses. What they can do or not do is determined by state law and other regulations,” said McCarthy. “[This policy will] have no impact on free speech in general.”
Councilmember Deb Harris said she didn’t need any more explanation of the policy changes, and that she was in full support of the draft policy as it stood.
Heidi Hansen, director of Economic Vitality, was responsible for the policy changes. Hansen recommended requiring firearms-related companies to include compelled speech consisting of a “safety message” in their advertisements.
Hansen further disclosed that their rejection of an ad placement by Timber Firearms and Training was due to the fact that the ad video depicted a firearms instructor “firing rapidly” at a “silhouette of a person.” The figure in question was likely the B-27 silhouette paper target, a common tool for shooting ranges, especially for law enforcement training.
“It was firing quite rapidly at a silhouette of a person and we felt like that might make someone uncomfortable,” said Hansen.
It appears that Timber Firearms and Training ad placement request was the motivator for the new proposed policy.
Wilson spoke out against the policy during Tuesday’s meeting. He noted that ads do have an impact, contrary to what some on the council implied.
“Sadly, some of our customers are like the single mother that just left the judge’s chambers. She has an order of protection but knows the abuser’s not going to honor that. She has to come someplace where she can get training and where she can get armed to defend herself and her children,” said Wilson. “If she didn’t know we existed, what would the result be?”
Wilson further warned the council that the proposed policy would be grounds for a lawsuit.
Michael Infanzon, a lobbyist representing the Arizona Citizens Defense League (ACDL), also voiced opposition to the policy. Infanzon said that the policy ran afoul of the Constitution and Arizona statute.
“[Municipalities] cannot enforce a complete ban unless they can demonstrate that such advertising constitutes a threat to public health and safety,” recited Infanzon.
Councilmember Miranda Sweet said Timber Firearms and Training may have to compromise.
“I was very uncomfortable when I watched [the ad video],” said Sweet. “We’re trying to welcome people into the community when they come into the airport, and the video didn’t portray that.”
Vice Mayor Austin Aslan said the proposed policy was “far too descriptive” and suggested changing the language to reflect “weapons” rather than “firearms.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The University of Arizona (UArizona) will not reveal the identity of the student who threatened to shoot up the James E. College of Law campus over “transphobes” this past spring semester.
Police records reflect that the threats were made in the days leading up to April 10th, prompting concerns that lasted throughout the month and moved the law school to hold its last week of classes and finals remotely.
UArizona told AZ Free News that they redacted the student’s name from official records due to privacy and confidentiality issues.
According to records first obtained by 13 News, the University of Arizona Police Department (UAPD) reported finding “threatening messages referencing killing people at UA campus” on the student’s phone. They found a search history that included questions around shooting accuracy, mass shootings, the Michigan State shooting, and Tucson shooting ranges. In an Instagram post included within police records, the student said they would rather kill a transphobe than be killed.
“All the gay people I know in the US are afraid for their life every day,” read the post. “I pack a loaded 9mm around with me because I’d rather kill a transphobe than get killed. But even then, I’d still probably die in a gunfight.”
Also according to police records, a friend reported to police that the student expressed an intent to shoot people. A friend also reported that the student would carry a gun onto campus property, despite knowing that it violated university policy.
“[The student] was talking oddly and that within the odd speech, [the student] stated, ‘I’m gonna shoot people’ as well as ‘they’re gonna come to shoot me’ and ‘I’m gonna shoot them before they shoot me,’” said the report. “[The student] has a gun and takes it to the university even though [the student] knows [they’re] not supposed to but uses it for protection in case [they’re] attacked.”
These threats emerged just weeks after the Christian elementary school shooting in Nashville, Tennessee. The shooter — 28-year-old Aiden Hale, formerly known as Audrey Hale — was a woman who identified as a transgender man and a former student of the school. Three children and three adults were murdered by Hale before police stopped her.
Police records reflected that the UArizona student was hospitalized for mental health issues on April 10. Yet, on April 28, UAPD was notified that the student’s NetID WiFi was used in an attempted log-in on a campus computer. The student was not on campus. The interim public safety officer said the student was “in care” and not on campus at the time of the log-in.
In May, the student was reportedly entered into a federal database to prevent the future purchase of a firearm.
At the time of the threats and in a statement last week, the university repeatedly declared that the student posed no threat to campus. Interim Chief Safety Officer Steve Patterson said as much in a statement last Friday on the incident.
“UAPD has categorized the matter as a mental health-related case rather than a criminal matter,” said Patterson. “The investigation by the University of Arizona Police Department found that friends identified a student in crisis off-campus in April and sought care for their friend. While the student was in supervised care — and therefore posed no threat to the campus community — the student’s friends turned in a loaded handgun to the Tucson Police Department and informed them that the student had made verbal threats, although later statements indicated that the threat was less clear.”
Yet, Patterson advised students to remain vigilant on campus.
“The April incident is an important reminder that all of us must remain vigilant in the face of threatening or concerning behavior,” said Patterson.
According to the report, the student was banned from campus and university activities.
The University of Arizona Police Department (UAPD) maintains a public list of banned individuals. Their policy maintains that these exclusionary orders are issued for a minimum of six months and potentially up to one year from the date of the offense. According to that list, there are 90 individuals who were banned within the potential same time frame as the student who issued the shooting threat.
At least one of the individuals within that time frame on the Exclusionary Orders list identifies as a transgender individual. It also appears that one of those individuals could have the ability to log in remotely to a campus computer — as it appears the student did on April 28 — having been an information technology services employee for the university until around May.
Questions concerning the ability of UArizona students to “remain vigilant” of an unidentified, banned student remain unanswered. UArizona referredAZPM to the redacted police report and Patterson’s statement when asked. The university also wouldn’t confirm whether the student is included in the UAPD exclusionary orders list.
The entire list of those banned within the same potential time frame as the student who made the shooting threat are listed below:
Timothy Hallman, exclusion through Oct. 11, 2023
Lawrence Littlefield, exclusion through Oct. 12, 2023
Eric Gates, exclusion through Oct. 13, 2023
Joseph Mackinder, exclusion through Oct. 19, 2023
Jeffery Garland, exclusion through Oct. 19, 2023
Jorge Howard, exclusion through Oct. 20, 2023
Kyle Narreau, exclusion through Oct. 25, 2023
Christopher Bravo, exclusion through Oct. 28, 2023
Jacob Ficek, exclusion through Oct. 29, 2023
Daniel Frescura, exclusion through Nov. 2, 2023
Bob Bernal, exclusion through Nov. 3, 2023
Jack Music, exclusion through Nov. 3, 2023
Eva Arevalo, exclusion through Nov. 3, 2023
Jerry Johnson, exclusion through Nov. 3, 2023
Jordan Daniel, exclusion through Nov. 9, 2023
Peter Fass, exclusion through Nov. 10, 2023
David Petersen, exclusion through Nov. 14, 2023
Ronald Andrews, exclusion through Nov. 15, 2023
Luis Leveta, exclusion through Nov. 16, 2023
Randy Elam, exclusion through Nov. 17, 2023
Kieth Davis, exclusion through Nov. 17, 2023
Chester Carroll, exclusion through Nov. 17, 2023
Joshua Neuser, exclusion through Nov. 17, 2023
Benjamin Burch, exclusion through Nov. 18, 2023
Kimberly Meadows, exclusion through Nov. 22, 2023
Wallace Leight, exclusion through Nov. 23, 2023
Victor De Anda, exclusion through Nov. 26, 2023
Roderick Davis, exclusion through Nov. 27, 2023
James Aguilar, exclusion through Nov. 29, 2023
Jarrod Fligg, exclusion through Dec. 1, 2023
Chana Fligg, exclusion through Dec. 1, 2023
Jamal Shannon, exclusion through Dec. 1, 2023
Carlos Castillo, exclusion through Dec. 3, 2023
Lucas Griffith, exclusion through Dec. 3, 2023
Adrian Davis, exclusion through Dec. 5, 2023
Gregory Nelson, exclusion through Dec. 5, 2023
Victor Zevallos, exclusion through Dec. 12, 2023
Matthew Verheyen, exclusion through Dec. 18, 2023
Wayne Martino, exclusion through Dec. 21, 2023
Mariah Ruiz, exclusion through Dec. 22, 2023
Aaron Collelmo, exclusion through Dec. 22, 2023
Sandra Steinmetz, exclusion through Dec. 30, 2023
Brittney Garcia, exclusion through Dec. 30, 2023
Selahattin Toprak, exclusion through Dec. 30, 2023
Steven Helming, exclusion through Jan. 2, 2024
David Meracle, exclusion through Jan. 4, 2024
Curtis Linner, exclusion through Jan. 5, 2024
Zachary Kindell, exclusion through Jan. 5, 2024
Christian Diaz De Leon, exclusion through Jan. 7, 2024
Dustin M. Klett, exclusion through Jan. 13, 2024
Cody Hill, exclusion through Jan. 13, 2024
Gregory Schmitt, exclusion through Jan. 15, 2024
Robert Ramsey, exclusion through Jan. 15, 2024
Steven Asmar, exclusion through Jan. 17, 2024
Michael Todd, exclusion through Jan. 18, 2024
William Turnbow, exclusion through Jan. 20, 2024
Russell Higgins, exclusion through Jan. 26, 2024
Leona Arreola, exclusion through Jan. 26, 2024
Elijah Salzwedel, exclusion through Jan. 26, 2024
Derek Kirven, exclusion through Feb. 4, 2024
Jeffrey Jorgenson, exclusion through Feb. 4, 2024
Paul Curran, exclusion through Feb. 8, 2024
Jorge Ruiz, exclusion through Feb. 8, 2024
Joseph Hardin, exclusion through Feb. 9, 2024
Johnathan Keeney, exclusion through Feb. 9, 2024
Chad Harvey, exclusion through Feb. 9, 2024
Arik Ruybe, exclusion through Feb. 13, 2024
Anthony Fuentes, exclusion through Feb. 13, 2024
Isaac Gracia, exclusion through Feb. 13, 2024
Jordan Young, exclusion through Feb. 14, 2024
Raymond Ramirez, exclusion through Feb. 14, 2024
John Lawicki, exclusion through Feb. 16, 2024
Tristen Dejolie, exclusion through Feb. 17, 2024
Richard Bowlby, exclusion through Feb. 18, 2024
Roman Arriero, exclusion through Feb. 21, 2024
Aric Ballard, exclusion through Feb. 22, 2024
Jason Blaylock, exclusion through Feb. 24, 2024
Ryan Kuhns, exclusion through Feb. 24, 2024
Andrea Young, exclusion through Feb. 25, 2024
Michael Burks, exclusion through Feb. 26, 2024
Leonard Johnson, exclusion through Feb. 29, 2024
Michael Clampitt, exclusion through Feb. 29, 2024
Kevin Huma, exclusion through March 3, 2024
Shannon Baker, exclusion through March 4, 2024
Enrique Lopez, exclusion through March 7, 2024
Kenton Landau, exclusion through March 21, 2024
Herbert Forreset, exclusion through March 30, 2024
Gabriel Sethi, exclusion through March 31, 2024
Jamie Chacon, exclusion through April 7, 2024
Leo Tift, exclusion through April 27, 2024
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
On Monday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in a lawsuit arguing against the state’s ban on abortions solely for genetic defects.
In the case, Isaacson v. Mayes, pro-abortion doctors and groups appealed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction against Arizona’s ban on abortions based on genetic defects.
The legislature passed the ban, SB 1457, back in 2021.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the ban are abortionists Paul Isaacson and Eric Reuss, along with the National Council of Jewish Women, Arizona National Organization For Women, and Arizona Medical Association.
Isaacson was a Phoenix-based abortionist with Family Planning Associates. Reuss was a Scottsdale-based OBGYN and former board member for Planned Parenthood of Arizona.
Judges Roopali Desai, Ronald Gould, and Andrew Hurwitz heard the oral arguments. While Desai and Hurwitz were engaged in the arguments with their questions, Gould hardly spoke except to request an adjustment of the livestream audio.
In March, House Speaker Ben Toma (R-LD27) and Senate President Warren Petersen (R-LD14) stepped up to defend the ban after Attorney General Kris Mayes said she would refuse to enforce the law. Mayes is acting as the defense in the lawsuit currently.
During Monday’s oral arguments, the main question at hand was whether the plaintiffs had Article III standing. Article III of the Constitution, as held by the Supreme Court, requires plaintiffs to prove an actual or imminent alleged injury that is concrete and particularized.
Jessica Sklarsky with the Center for Reproductive Rights argued on behalf of the plaintiffs that they suffer undisputed economic harms and threat of prosecution due to the abortion ban. The district court determined that the plaintiffs failed to meet the standard set by the 2014 Supreme Court case Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, which determined that pre-enforcement challenges satisfy the Article III standard and are justiciable when a statute’s enforcement is sufficiently imminent.
Sklarksy also argued that the abortion ban qualified as a vague law, and therefore violated due process rights.
“Vague laws force those they govern to either avoid doing anything that is arguably covered by the law, or to engage in that conduct with the constant threat of arbitrary enforcement,” said Sklarsky.
Denise Harle with Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), counsel on behalf of Toma and Petersen, countered that no Article III injury exists due to the lack of a credible threat of enforcement.
Harle pointed out that all 15 county attorneys have acceded their authority to Mayes, and that Mayes has disavowed enforcement of abortion law. Harle also pointed out Gov. Katie Hobbs’ executive order in June usurping all county attorneys’ authority on abortion law and conferring it to Mayes.
Hurwitz and Desai pushed back against Harle’s reference to Mayes and Hobbs’ conduct, arguing that Mayes didn’t issue a disclaimer in this case specifically detailing her intent to not enforce the law.
Hurwitz indicated that Toma and Petersen’s support of the law, as well as the private enforcement aspect of the law, indicated a credible threat of enforcement.
“Does the law really require that a credible threat be communicated? If the state of Arizona passes a statute and the two leaders of the legislature are here defending its constitutionality, isn’t that enough to show there is a credible not a certain but a credible threat of enforcement?” asked Hurwitz.
Harle disagreed, saying the potential for private enforcement constituted a hypothetical. She alluded to the arrangement by Hobbs and Mayes to not enforce abortion law.
“[T]he theoretical possibility of an injury sometime in the future is too conjectural when it’s not imminent,” said Harle.
Desai followed up by stating that the court’s decision in Tingley v. Fergusoncould apply to this case. In that case, a family counselor challenged the state of Washington’s ban on conversion therapy as a violation of free speech and religious practice. Harle responded that the existence of a law alone wasn’t sufficient for direct injury.
“Virtually anyone could look at a law, say ‘I’m not sure what that means, I’m going to do something or not do something’ [and] that would be enough for a federal court to weigh in and adjudicate the merits of that claim on a facial challenge,” said Harle.
Watch the full hearing here:
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
