by Matthew Holloway | Mar 7, 2026 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Arizona Senate lawmakers passed legislation on Monday that would explicitly prohibit the use of Sharia law in state courts, a proposal supporters say clarifies existing statutes governing the application of foreign law in judicial proceedings.
The measure, Arizona Senate Bill 1018, would amend Arizona law to specify that the definition of “foreign law” includes Sharia law, the religious legal tradition associated with Islam.
Under current Arizona law, state courts are prohibited from enforcing foreign laws when doing so would violate the U.S. Constitution, the Arizona Constitution, or state statutes.
SB 1018 would revise that framework by explicitly naming Sharia law within the statute governing the application of foreign law in state courts and by expanding the definition to include any legal system outside U.S. federal or Arizona law.
Supporters of the proposal say the measure is intended to clarify that religious or foreign legal codes cannot override constitutional protections in Arizona courts.
The legislation was introduced by State Sen. Janae Shamp (R-LD29) and passed the Senate floor in a 17-12 vote after receiving committee approval.
Opponents say the bill singles out a specific religious legal tradition and could stigmatize Muslim communities in the state. Senate Minority Leader Priya Sundareshan (D-LD18) told AZ Capitol Times that the bill specifically referenced the practices of female genital mutilation, forced marriage, and “domestic violence or spousal abuse that is justified by cultural, religious, or family authority,” stating that they could be considered related to some followers of Islam.
She told the outlet, “So really, what this bill does is it singles out a group of people, and it singles out a religion for harassment and discrimination merely by the fact that we are talking about this.” She added, “It is targeted discrimination. It is asking for more harassment and discrimination.”
In a statement to the California Globe, Sen. Shamp said, “This bill aims to defend American rights and ensure our legal system remains clear and consistent.”
She explained, “Sharia law is a religious legal system that, in practice, has been used to justify unequal treatment of women, restrictions on free speech, and punishment for religious dissent — all of which conflict directly with the U.S. Constitution. Allowing any foreign or religious law into our courts creates dangerous ambiguity. This legislation sends a strong message: in America, the Constitution takes precedence.”
A broader national trend has seen several states pass laws limiting the use of foreign or religious legal systems in court proceedings over the past decade. Measures prohibiting the application of Sharia law or other foreign legal codes have previously been adopted in 10 other states—Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Washington —according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Arizona already has statutory restrictions on foreign law in judicial decisions, and critics of SB 1018 argue the proposal is largely symbolic because those protections already exist. However, Sen. Hildy Angius (R-LD2) pushed back on the objection, telling the Times, “But that’s not the point,” adding that the bill is designed to address the judicial process after the law has already been broken.
“This amendment addresses whether any external legal system may ever be invoked to justify, excuse, or pressure conduct that violates Arizona law,” Angius said. “Clarifying legal supremacy is not redundant. It is preventative.”
She also rebuked claims that the bill targets the Islamic faith, saying, “Sharia is a legal system. This amendment does not judge faith. It clarifies authority.”
The legislation is continuing through the Arizona Legislature and would require approval by the House of Representatives before being sent to Governor Katie Hobbs for consideration, where its adoption outlook is grim. Since taking office in 2023, Gov. Katie Hobbs has vetoed more than 390 bills passed by the Republican-led Legislature, more than any governor in Arizona history.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Matthew Holloway | Mar 6, 2026 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The U.S. House of Representatives passed bipartisan legislation led by U.S. Rep. Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ-06) to strengthen domestic supply chains for critical minerals, including copper, on Tuesday.
The measure, the Critical Mineral Consistency Act (H.R. 755), would align federal definitions used by the U.S. Department of Energy and the Department of the Interior for materials considered critical to national security, manufacturing, and energy infrastructure. The legislation passed the House unanimously.
Currently, the Department of Energy maintains a list of “critical materials,” while the U.S. Geological Survey within the Department of the Interior maintains a separate list of “critical minerals.” Because the lists differ, certain materials do not qualify for federal incentives, financing opportunities, or streamlined permitting available to resources designated as critical minerals.
The legislation would align the two federal lists, allowing materials identified by the Department of Energy to receive the same recognition and benefits granted to those listed by the U.S. Geological Survey.
According to Ciscomani’s office, the policy change is intended to provide greater clarity for federal agencies and industry while accelerating domestic mining and processing projects.
“America should never have to depend on adversaries for the materials that power our economy and national defense,” Ciscomani said in a statement announcing the bill’s passage. “With today’s passage of the Critical Mineral Consistency Act, we are streamlining permitting, attracting investment, and unlocking Arizona’s vast mineral resources — especially copper — to strengthen our supply chains and our security.”
The legislation was introduced with bipartisan support and has backing from industry groups, including the Copper Development Association, National Mining Association, National Electric Manufacturers Association, and the Business Council for Sustainable Energy.
“Accessing critical minerals and materials is essential for our national security and energy grid. Government red tape should not be a barrier to development and innovation,” said Rep. Susie Lee (D-NV-03), a co-sponsor of the bill. “Whether something is a ‘critical mineral’ according to the Interior Department or a ‘critical material’ according to the Energy Department, the federal government should treat all as critical resources. I’m glad my commonsense, bipartisan bill is one step closer to providing the clarity that both industry and federal agencies need.”
The bill now moves to the U.S. Senate for consideration.
The National Republican Congressional Committee also issued a statement following the vote, saying the legislation would reduce regulatory barriers affecting critical minerals important to the U.S. energy grid, national security, and Arizona’s economy.
NRCC Spokesman Ben Petersen credited Rep. Ciscomani, stating, “Representative Juan Ciscomani continues working to grow Arizona’s economy, create good-paying jobs, and lower energy costs. Getting things done has made Representative Ciscomani the most-effective and most-bipartisan Member of Congress from Arizona.”
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Matthew Holloway | Mar 5, 2026 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Arizona House Republicans announced the passage of legislation known as “Cade’s Law,” a measure aimed at making it a felony for adults to encourage minors to die by suicide through online communications.
The legislation, House Bill 2665, would amend Arizona’s manslaughter statute to include situations in which an adult knowingly provides advice, encouragement, or directed communication that a minor later uses to die by suicide. Under the bill, an adult who intentionally sends such communications with knowledge that the minor intends to die by suicide could be charged with manslaughter, a Class 2 felony under Arizona law.
The measure was introduced by State Representative Pamela Carter (R-LD4) and has been referred to as “Cade’s Law—If You See Something, Say Something.” According to House Republicans, the proposal seeks to address situations in which adults deliberately target minors online with messages encouraging self-harm or suicide.
HB 2665 expands existing law, which already classifies intentionally providing the physical means for another person to die by suicide as manslaughter. The proposed changes add provisions specifically covering online advice, encouragement, or communications directed at minors.
“Two years ago, I met with the mother of Cade Keller, a talented 16-year-old who loved welding and had just started at Mesa Community College,” Carter explained in a statement. “On March 12, 2022, Cade posted on Instagram that he planned to take his life and shared it with peers. No one called 911. Cade’s mom found him the next morning after he died by suicide. Arizona law already punishes providing the physical means, but it has left a gap when an adult uses targeted online messages to push a child toward suicide. Cade’s Law closes that gap. If you are 18 or older and you knowingly encourage a minor who intends to die by suicide, you should face serious criminal consequences. Kids in crisis need help immediately, not spectators and not online predators.”
Carter identified the bill as the companion to HB 2666, which, if enacted, would punish the sexual extortion of minors online.
The bill defines “directed communication” to include verbal, written, or electronic messages sent through platforms such as social media, text messaging, or other online services that are specifically addressed to or clearly directed at a minor.
The language specifies that general discussions about suicide or mental health, artistic expression, or public commentary not directed at a specific minor would not be included. If enacted, the law would apply to individuals aged 18 or older who intentionally provide such advice or encouragement to minors.
HB 2665 will now proceed to the Arizona State Senate for further consideration.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Matthew Holloway | Mar 5, 2026 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The Common Sense Institute (CSI) announced that President Pro Tempore of the Arizona Senate, Sen. T.J. Shope (R-LD16), will receive the 2026 Visionary for the Future Award at its annual Free Enterprise Summit.
CSI described the award in a March 2 press release as recognizing leaders who demonstrate innovation, bridge-building, and principled leadership in addressing public policy challenges in Arizona, and who define complex issues and advance practical, data-informed solutions aimed at strengthening long-term opportunity and prosperity.
Shope was first elected to the Arizona House of Representatives in 2012 and served in that chamber through 2021, including as Speaker pro Tempore. He was elected to the Arizona State Senate in 2020 and assumed office in January 2021.
Shope holds roles on key legislative committees, including Natural Resources, Energy and Water; Health and Human Services; Director Nominations; Elections, and Rules.
In its announcement, CSI said Shope has built a record of “pragmatic policymaking focused on agriculture, water, commerce, education, and natural resources,” through his legislative work and committee service.
“Senator Shope exemplifies thoughtful, solutions-oriented leadership,” said Katie Ratlief, Executive Director of CSI. “He has consistently demonstrated that durable economic growth requires collaboration and a commitment to policy grounded in facts.” CSI’s announcement said that Shope’s work reflects the innovation and common-sense approach that the award is intended to honor.
Shope is also a small business owner and community figure in Coolidge, Arizona. According to his legislative profile and campaign materials, he co-owns his family’s longstanding supermarket business and has long been active in local civic life prior to his legislative service.
The Visionary for the Future Award will be presented during the Free Enterprise Summit, where CSI also recognizes leaders in business, government, and economic policy. Information about the summit and registration is available on the Common Sense Institute’s website.
CSI’s mission is to provide nonpartisan, evidence-based research on public policy issues affecting Arizona’s economy and promote informed dialogue on economic opportunity and prosperity. The organization’s work spans topics including workforce, education, housing, infrastructure, and state budget analysis.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Matthew Holloway | Mar 4, 2026 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled that prevailing wage ordinances enacted by the cities of Phoenix and Tucson violate state law, ruling in favor of the Associated Minority Contractors of Arizona, represented by the Goldwater Institute in a lawsuit challenging those laws.
The decision holds that local ordinances requiring contractors on certain public works projects to pay “prevailing wages” are prohibited under a 1984 state statute, A.R.S. § 34-321(B), that forbids cities from imposing prevailing wage requirements. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s judgment that the ordinances conflict with state law.
Goldwater’s lawsuit was brought on behalf of the Associated Minority Contractors of Arizona, the Arizona Builders Alliance, and the Arizona Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America, who argued that the ordinances exceeded cities’ authority under Arizona statute.
In a statement, Timothy Sandefur, Vice President for Legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute, said, “The real winners in today’s ruling are Arizona taxpayers—as the court itself made clear.”
Sandefur then quoted the court’s language, writing: “The Cities’ interpretation would grant the Cities broad power. With that power, the Cities could dictate how much any employer pays any employee anytime an employer contracts or subcontracts with the Cities. Put differently, the Cities by ordinance could dictate pay whenever an employee works under a public contract, regardless of the contract’s value or the nature of the work performed.”
He added, “That, of course, would cost taxpayers more—reducing their freedom of choice and their ability to invest in their own futures—all for the benefit of politicians and politically well-connected lobbyists.”
In a post to X, he wrote, “The decision’s an important victory for taxpayers throughout the state, who’d otherwise be forced to pay inflated prices for public works projects even though a state law approved by voters abolished ‘prevailing wages’ over 40 yrs ago.”
Prevailing wage laws, distinct from minimum wage laws, require employers on public contracts to pay workers based on wage rates calculated by formula, often higher than standard minimum wages. The 1984 state law expressly prohibits cities from requiring public works contracts to include prevailing wage provisions.
In the case before the appellate court, Phoenix and Tucson had passed ordinances applying prevailing wage rates to city contracts exceeding defined monetary thresholds, $4 million for Phoenix and $2 million in Tucson, and set wage requirements by reference to federal Davis-Bacon Act wage schedules.
Attorneys for the cities had argued that subsequent voter-approved minimum wage measures, including the 2006 voter-approved Minimum Wage Act and subsequent amendments, allowed local governments to regulate minimum wages and thus could support prevailing wage requirements. The court rejected that interpretation, finding that the statutory authority for cities to regulate minimum wage does not extend to prevailing wage mandates.
In its ruling, the appellate panel wrote that prevailing wage provisions do not qualify as “minimum wages” under the relevant Arizona statutes, noting that prevailing wage requirements apply only to a subset of workers on specific public contracts, whereas minimum wage laws apply generally to all employees once employed.
“Section 34-321(B) prohibits political subdivisions from requiring contractors or subcontractors to pay the prevailing rate of wages on public works contracts,” the court wrote. The panel further held that Phoenix’s and Tucson’s ordinances “conflict with § 34-321(B) and are therefore invalid.”
The court concluded that the 1984 prohibition on prevailing wage requirements remains in effect and was not repealed by later minimum wage laws, determining that the newer statutes and the prevailing wage prohibition can coexist without conflict.
“The Local Permission Provision authorizes regulation of minimum wages,” the court wrote, referring to § 23-364(I). “Prevailing wages are not minimum wages.”
Prevailing wage ordinances have been the subject of multiple legal challenges in Arizona. In 2024, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge similarly ruled against prevailing wage ordinances in Phoenix and Tucson, finding they violated the same state prohibition.
The appellate decision affects not only Phoenix and Tucson but also any Arizona city considering similar prevailing wage mandates under state law, consistent with the court’s interpretation of A.R.S. § 34-321(B) on municipal wage-setting authority for public works contracts.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
