A federal judge denied a request on Tuesday from two healthcare nonprofits seeking to block Phoenix from enforcing restrictions on food distribution and medical treatment in city parks. The court found that the organizations had not shown a likelihood of success on their argument that the activities constitute expressive conduct under the First Amendment.
U.S. District Judge Diane J. Humetewa denied the preliminary-injunction motion filed by Circle the City and Valle del Sol Community Health. Humetewa also canceled a hearing that had been scheduled for Wednesday.
“The Court disagrees that Plaintiffs’ provision of medical care or food to the unhoused is inherently expressive conduct under the First Amendment,” Humetewa wrote.
The order leaves Phoenix’s Medical Treatment and Food Distribution in Parks Ordinance enforceable against the two organizations while their underlying lawsuit continues. The organizations filed the case, Circle the City et al. v. City of Phoenix et al., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on June 15 and submitted their motion for preliminary injunction the following day.
Circle the City provides street medicine and other healthcare services to homeless residents, while Valle del Sol operates harm-reduction programs that include syringe services. Their lawsuit argues that the ordinance violates the First Amendment by restricting charitable food distribution and medical care while exempting other activities involving food or medical assistance.
The plaintiffs also contend that the city’s permit system operates as an unconstitutional prior restraint and that Arizona law authorizing harm-reduction programs preempts the ordinance’s restrictions on syringe services.
Humetewa found that the nonprofits had not demonstrated that observers would understand their provision of food and medical care as communicating their stated message that every person deserves dignity and access to basic services. Humetewa cited the absence of signs, literature, or other accompanying communications in the record.
Humetewa also wrote that the First Amendment gives governments greater latitude to regulate conduct than spoken or written expression.
Attorney Will Knight of the National Homelessness Law Center said the plaintiffs were disappointed with the ruling and were reviewing their legal options. Phoenix declined to comment on the decision, citing the pending litigation.
The Phoenix City Council approved the ordinance on May 6, and it took effect on June 7. Individuals and organizations must obtain a Parks Services Permit before conducting charitable food distributions or providing covered medical treatment in a city park.
Phoenix will issue no more than two per eligible park each month. The ordinance requires covered medical services to be provided under the supervision of a licensed professional inside an enclosed tent or mobile medical vehicle located on a parking lot or other approved hardscape area.
The ordinance also prohibits the sale, distribution, or exchange of syringes or needles, needle-exchange programs, and the distribution of needle or intramuscular naloxone in city parks. Violations constitute a Class 1 misdemeanor.
The ordinance contains exemptions, including those for first responders, assistance provided during emergencies, aid given to family members, water and electrolyte distribution, educational outreach, and private gatherings where food is served to participants.
Phoenix says the framework is intended to keep parks clean, safe, and accessible while connecting homeless residents with established service providers. The city encourages residents to support organizations participating in its Healthy Giving program.
The Humetewa ruling follows a different result in a parallel challenge brought by St. Herman’s Table, an Orthodox Christian ministry that distributes meals to homeless residents at Cave Creek Park.
U.S. District Judge Krissa Lanham granted St. Herman’s Table and its founder, Lance Brace, a temporary restraining order on June 10, finding that they were likely to succeed on their First Amendment Free Exercise claim. Lanham extended the order on June 16 until she rules on their preliminary injunction motion.
The temporary order prohibits Phoenix from enforcing the ordinance against St. Herman’s Table and Brace. It does not apply to other organizations.
AZ Free News reported in June that St. Herman’s Table distributes meals, water, Bibles, and hygiene supplies each week as part of its religious ministry.
The ordinance and Phoenix’s handling of homelessness have also drawn political criticism. In May, Arizona Republican Party Chairman Sergio Arellano joined radio host James T. Harris during a visit to the downtown area known as “The Zone.”
Arellano criticized city leadership and praised an unidentified faith-based nonprofit that the Arizona Republican Party said received no taxpayer funding. Harris regularly conducts homeless outreach through The Bridge for Community Services, where he serves as corporate vice president and executive director. The party’s post did not identify the organization accompanying Harris, and The Bridge is not a party to either federal lawsuit.
Humetewa’s ruling addresses the request for immediate relief filed by Circle the City and Valle del Sol. Their broader challenge to the ordinance remains pending before the federal court.
Congressman Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ-06) met with Huachuca City officials Tuesday to discuss a $1.3 million federal funding provision intended to replace the town fire department’s aging ladder-equipped fire engine.
The congressman visited Huachuca City this week and met with local leaders and fire personnel about the proposed purchase. The funding remains preliminary and has not been distributed to the town.
The provision appears in H.R. 8646, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agency Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2027. The House passed the bill 213-210 on June 4, and it was received by the Senate on June 8. Senate approval and enactment of the appropriations legislation are still required before the funding becomes available.
Grateful to see firsthand how the $1.3 million in federal funding I preliminarily secured will strengthen fire response in Huachuca City and across the region.
Proud to fight for this meaningful investment, which will bring a much-needed quint ladder truck and help keep #AZ06… pic.twitter.com/p5j5qGuHhg
— Congressman Juan Ciscomani (@RepCiscomani) August 12, 2026
Ciscomani’s Community Project Funding disclosure identifies Huachuca City as the intended recipient of $1.3 million for the “Community Fire Protection and Regional Mutual Aid Ladder Truck Acquisition Project.”
The money would replace an aging fire engine with a quint ladder truck equipped with a 78-foot Viper aerial. According to the disclosure, the apparatus would be used for fire suppression, rescue operations, and emergency response.
Huachuca City’s existing ladder-equipped engine dates to 2008 and is approaching the end of its service life. It is currently the department’s only apparatus equipped with a ladder. The town relies on grants and federal funding to finance large equipment purchases.
The proposed truck would be stationed in Huachuca City and made available for regional mutual-aid responses. Ciscomani’s disclosure states that the apparatus would also support emergency operations in Sierra Vista, Fort Huachuca, Whetstone, and unincorporated areas of Cochise County.
“This has different layers of purpose,” Ciscomani told KGUN while discussing the project’s regional role.
Huachuca City Mayor Johann Wallace said the purchase would give the department approximately 20 additional years of apparatus service and allow it to continue assisting other communities throughout Cochise County.
The Huachuca City proposal is among 20 fiscal year 2027 Community Project Funding requests supported by Ciscomani. His office announced in June that the fire-truck provision and two other projects in Arizona’s Sixth Congressional District had been included in the House-passed agriculture appropriations bill.
According to a press release from Ciscomani’s office, the proposed funding for Huachuca City is included among a total of $7.3 million in FY2027 funding for Cochise County.
“As Arizona’s sole appropriator in either the House or Senate, I have made it my mission to be a relentless advocate for Southern Arizona by listening to the needs of our communities and fighting to bring those priorities to Washington,” Ciscomani said.
“Every Community Project Funding request I champion is driven by local leaders and the people they serve, ensuring taxpayer dollars are invested where they will have the greatest impact. These meaningful investments in Cochise County will improve and strengthen public safety by equipping our first responders with the tools necessary to do their job effectively, such as replacing an aging fire engine with a new quint ladder truck, to ensure that across Cochise County they are prepared to meet the moment when it matters most.”
H.R. 8646 remains pending in the Senate. The Huachuca City allocation will depend on the project remaining in the final appropriations legislation approved by Congress and signed into law.
Friends of the Salt River Wild Horses is calling on Gov. Katie Hobbs to meet with advocates, saying more than 70 requests for a meeting have gone unanswered as the planned September removal of horses from the Salt River herd draws closer.
The organization issued the appeal Monday, one week after Hobbs formally launched her “Arizona Over Party” coalition, which her reelection campaign described as a group of Republican and Independent leaders, community members, and business leaders supporting her campaign.
“My focus has always been on delivering results for Arizona families,” Hobbs said when announcing the coalition. “That’s what Arizona Over Party is all about: putting the people of Arizona ahead of partisan politics.”
Friends of the Salt River Wild Horses cited the coalition in its Monday press release, saying its members span the political spectrum and have repeatedly sought an opportunity to speak with Hobbs before horses begin being permanently removed from the herd.
“We are not asking Governor Hobbs to agree with us,” a spokesperson for the group said. “We are simply asking her to listen before an irreversible decision is made.”
The organization said it has submitted more than 70 requests for a meeting with the governor through letters, emails, and other channels over the past several months.
During the group’s July 22 “Preserve the Herd — Follow the Science” rally at the Arizona State Capitol, advocates displayed more than 50 written requests seeking a meeting or assistance from the governor. Organizers said at the time that the requests had gone unanswered.
The dispute centers on a five-year herd management agreement awarded by the Arizona Department of Agriculture (AZDA) to the Salt River Wild Horse Management Group in February. The management group has said the plan calls for reducing the herd from approximately 274 horses to 120 through fertility control, natural attrition, and gradual relocation of horses to sanctuaries.
The Salt River Wild Horse Management Group said it plans to relocate approximately 25 horses annually to protected sanctuaries, with the first relocations planned for September. The group has opposed reducing the herd to 120 while saying it agreed to the plan as a compromise that would limit the number of horses removed each year and keep family bands together.
Friends of the Salt River Wild Horses said Monday that the herd currently numbers approximately 269 horses and reiterated its request that Hobbs pause permanent removals until an independent scientific review determines whether the population remaining along the Salt River would be genetically viable and self-sustaining.
“The burden should be on the state to show the science before taking an irreversible action,” the organization said. “The public should not have to accept assurances when the future of a protected herd is at stake. We are asking to see the independent scientific evidence supporting these reductions.”
The group has previously raised concerns over the proposed population level alongside wildlife ecologists and equine genetics specialists. In July, equine population geneticist and Texas A&M University professor emeritus Dr. E. Gus Cothran warned that a population of 120 could pose long-term genetic concerns, saying a population of approximately 150 to 200 animals is generally considered a minimum for maintaining genetic health over an extended period.
The Agriculture Department has defended the management process. When the contract was announced, AZDA said the proposal was evaluated by a panel that included veterinarians, a rangeland management scientist, and a federal wild horse manager, and said the gradual reduction was intended to balance available resources within the herd’s range while preserving its genetic integrity.
The department also told the Arizona Capitol Times in April that it had not independently established or mandated a 120-horse target. According to AZDA, the Salt River Wild Horse Management Group proposed reducing the herd to 120 over the five-year contract period. The department said sustainable management requires considering both the ecosystem’s capacity and the size and genetic diversity of the herd.
A spokesperson for Hobbs’ office said at the time that AZDA conducted a thorough procurement process and that the state was committed to sustainably managing the herd to protect the long-term health of the horses and their habitat.
The question of whether additional scientific review should precede removals also reached the Legislature earlier this year. A House-amended version of SB 1199 would have required AZDA to contract for an independent genetic assessment examining effective population size, allelic diversity, and inbreeding coefficients within the herd. It also would have temporarily prohibited population control removals while the herd maintained a negative growth rate, except when necessary to prevent or alleviate the suffering of an individually assessed horse and not for population control.
The House approved the amended legislation 43-10 on June 9 and returned it to the Senate, but senators did not take a final concurrence vote before the Legislature adjourned.
Current Arizona law prohibits harassing, shooting, injuring, killing, or slaughtering members of the Salt River herd and prohibits interfering with, taking, chasing, capturing, or euthanizing the horses without written authorization from the Department of Agriculture or Maricopa County sheriff, which may be granted only for humane purposes. The statute also authorizes the state to enter agreements with private entities concerning management of the herd.
Friends of the Salt River Wild Horses said its request to Hobbs remains open ahead of the September removals.
“Before the September removals, please meet with us,” the organization said. “And before another healthy horse is removed, please show Arizonans the independent science supporting that decision.”
AZ Free News requested comments from Gov. Hobbs’ Office and the Arizona Department of Agriculture; as of publication, no responses were received.
Republican secretary of state nominee Rep. Alexander Kolodin (R-LD3) accused Democratic incumbent Adrian Fontes of trying to avoid a general election debate after Fontes proposed holding the debate on Sept. 21, which falls on Yom Kippur.
In a post on X, Kolodin wrote, “Adrian Fontes is trying to duck out of debating me.” He said Fontes had requested a change to the debate date and made himself available on Sept. 21, which Kolodin described as the “one and only date” offered. Kolodin also shared an image of an email from Gina Roberts, Voter Education Director with the Citizens Clean Elections Commission, showing September 21st at 6 PM as the only date and time.
Adrian Fontes is trying to duck out of debating me.
And he’s doing it in the most pathetic and religiously insulting way possible.
Adrian Fontes has requested a change in the debate date and made himself available on the one and only date that religious obligation would prevent… pic.twitter.com/L1L0VYcex9
Yom Kippur, which means the Day of Atonement, begins at sunset on Sunday, Sept. 20, and ends at nightfall on Monday, Sept. 21, in 2026. It’s the holiest day on the Jewish calendar and work is prohibited during its observance. Kolodin said he observes the holiday and would be unable to debate that day because of his religious obligations.
He wrote:
“Adrian Fontes has requested a change in the debate date and made himself available on the one and only date that religious obligation would prevent me from debating him.
“September 21st is Yom Kippur, a religious holiday that is adhered to by Jewish residents of the State of Arizona, including myself. Jews are forbidden from performing work of any kind on that day. Adrian Fontes already knows this, which is why the singular date he offered up was that date.
“This is cowardly, pathetic, and un-American.”
Hey Alex, the day Phoenix freezes over is the day I refuse to debate you. Stop lying to Arizonans.
We’re working to lock in a date that works for the production team and gives voters a chance to tune in.
I already beat you at the Farm Bureau. Can’t wait to do it again on TV.
Fontes responded on X later Tuesday, rejecting Kolodin’s accusation that he planned to avoid the debate.
“Stop lying to Arizonans. We’re working to lock in a date that works for the production team and gives voters a chance to tune in,” he wrote.
The Arizona Media Association’s current public schedule lists the 2026 secretary of state debate date as “TBD.” The Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission, which is producing the statewide debate series with the association, said candidate coordination would guide the final schedule and that the debates would be produced at SNEAKY BIG studios.
The published schedules leave the previously proposed date and the candidates’ private scheduling exchanges unspecified. Kolodin’s post included no correspondence from Fontes, Clean Elections, or the production team. Fontes’ response gave no proposed dates.
Kolodin said he would clear his calendar for a debate on another day. He also used the post to renew campaign allegations concerning Fontes’ handling of proof-of-citizenship requirements, voting eligibility for law-enforcement officers, county election canvasses, and voter security. His post included no supporting documents for those four allegations, and Fontes’ scheduling response did not address them.
Kolodin, a Republican state representative for Legislative District 3, defeated former Arizona Republican Party Chair Gina Swoboda in the Republican primary. Fontes, a Democrat, has served as Arizona’s secretary of state since 2023 and is seeking a second term.
The state’s election calendar sets Oct. 5 as the voter-registration deadline and Oct. 7 as the start of early voting in Arizona’s general election.
As of Tuesday afternoon, the secretary of state debate remained without a publicly announced date.
The campaign supporting Proposition 318 filed a campaign finance complaint with Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes on Monday, alleging an opposition website copied its name and visual presentation while failing to disclose who paid for the site.
The two-page complaint accuses the unidentified operators of ProtectGirlsSportsAZ.vote of violating Arizona campaign disclosure requirements and attempting to mislead voters about the November ballot measure.
The complaint compares the opposition site with the Yes campaign’s ProtectGirlsSportsInAZ.vote, including screenshots showing similar turquoise, pink, black, and white branding and versions of the phrase “Protect Girls’ Sports in Arizona.” La Sota alleged the opposition site copied the Yes campaign’s “trade dress” and selected a web address closely resembling the campaign’s own domain.
“In addition, the website address itself is meant to mislead,” La Sota wrote in the complaint.
According to the complaint, the opposition site uses ProtectGirlsSportsAZ.vote, while ProtectGirlsSportsAZ.com redirects visitors to the same website. The Yes campaign operates ProtectGirlsSportsInAZ.vote.
“The group I chair has existed since June,” La Sota wrote. “What these fraudsters obviously did was go to our website and copy our trade dress and even our name, and intentionally found a website address that was as close to ours as possible.”
The complaint alleges that the opposition website does not identify a person or organization that paid for it.
Under A.R.S. § 16-925, a person other than an individual who makes an expenditure for an advertisement or fundraising solicitation must include the words “paid for by” followed by the name of the person making the expenditure. Electronically delivered advertisements are required to make the disclosure clearly readable.
Arizona campaign finance law defines an “advertisement” as information or materials, excluding nonpaid social media messages, that are published, displayed or otherwise placed in a communication medium for the purpose of influencing an election. A “ballot measure expenditure” is an expenditure that expressly advocates support for or opposition to an identified ballot measure.
“The only conceivable way that there would be no disclosure requirement would be if a single individual person was behind this shameful effort,” La Sota wrote. He added that publicly available registration information did not reveal the identity of the person who registered the domain.
Whether the website violates state campaign finance law has not been determined. The identity of its operator and the amount spent to create or maintain the site were not established in the complaint.
La Sota also cited A.R.S. § 16-905, writing that registration and campaign finance reporting requirements could apply depending on how much money has been spent on the effort.
Arizona law requires an entity to register as a political action committee when its primary purpose is influencing an election, and it crosses the applicable contribution or expenditure threshold. The Secretary of State lists the adjusted threshold for the 2025-2026 election cycle at $1,500.
The complaint also cites A.R.S. § 16-1006, which makes it unlawful to use specified corrupt means to influence an elector and prohibits deceiving an elector into voting for a different measure than the voter intended. A violation is a class 5 felony.
La Sota acknowledged in the complaint that the Secretary of State does not have criminal enforcement authority and cautioned against broad application of the statute because of its potential effect on protected political speech.
“Obviously this statute must be used with the utmost caution because it could easily be turned into a weapon against protected speech,” La Sota wrote. “But this is about as compelling a case under this statute as I have seen given the obvious attempt to defraud voters.”
The Yes campaign separately said it is asking Attorney General Kris Mayes to investigate whether the opposition website violates state consumer protection laws. The campaign did not include a separate Attorney General complaint among the materials provided to AZ Free News. Its Monday press release described the campaign finance complaint as filed with the Secretary of State and said the campaign was “asking the Attorney General to investigate.”
The campaign announced the complaint during an event at the Arizona State Capitol, where it also named Christine Jones and former Arizona State Treasurer Jeff DeWit as honorary co-chairs of the Yes on 318 campaign. State Senate President and Republican Attorney General nominee Warren Petersen, Republican gubernatorial nominee Rep. Andy Biggs, and Republican Secretary of State nominee state Rep. Alex Kolodin also voiced support for the measure in the campaign announcement.
“Arizona parents should not have to wonder whether a political website is deliberately deceiving them or who is hiding behind it,” Petersen said. “Attorney General Kris Mayes must immediately investigate these allegations and determine whether Arizona’s campaign finance and consumer protection laws were violated.”
The campaign also released a 39-second advertisement titled “Pretending”, which places screenshots of the Yes and No websites side by side and draws a comparison between the dispute over the opposition site and the campaign’s arguments concerning transgender participation in female sports. The advertisement ends with a disclosure stating that it was paid for by Protect Girls Sports in Arizona, received zero percent of its funding from out-of-state contributors and was not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee.
Glad to see my bill to protect girls’ sports and female spaces has been given a title and is now known as Prop 318. But now seeing a disgraceful trick by the opponents to copy our official website – Protect Girls’ Sports in Arizona. With look-alike graphics and no “Paid for”… pic.twitter.com/zHqIGDiZty
Proposition 318, referred to voters by the Legislature as HCR 2003, would amend Arizona law governing student athletics.
According to the Secretary of State’s official ballot language, the measure would require public schools, private schools and athletic associations to designate athletic teams as male, female, or coed based on biological sex as recorded at birth and would prohibit males from participating on female teams. It would also prohibit schools and athletic associations from authorizing individuals to use private spaces, including restrooms, that are not designated for that individual’s sex.
Current Arizona law applies the athletic-team designation requirements to public schools and private schools whose teams compete against public schools. Proposition 318 would broaden the statute to additional schools and athletic associations and expressly add restrictions governing restrooms, locker rooms, shower rooms, and other private athletic spaces.
A “yes” vote would enact those changes beginning Jan. 1, 2027, while a “no” vote would maintain current Arizona student-athletics law, according to the Secretary of State.
“Today we celebrate sports for all, as we begin the campaign to protect both girls’ sports and the right for everyone to participate,” Jones said Monday. “Prop 318, the Protect Girls Sports in Arizona Act will designate sports Male – Female – Co-Ed, ensuring fairness for females, and the opportunity for everyone to play.”
The complaint urges Fontes to take action on the alleged disclosure violations and ensure transparency surrounding the opposition website. La Sota asked the secretary to give the matter his “utmost attention,” writing that voters should not “unwittingly lose their vote on this ballot measure.” As of publication, no determination that a campaign finance violation occurred had been announced.
