Goldwater Institute attorneys urged the Arizona Supreme Court on Tuesday to allow Arizona State University (ASU) professor Owen Anderson to pursue his lawsuit alleging that the school’s “Inclusive Communities” employee training violated state law.
During oral arguments in Arizona Board of Regents v. Anderson, Goldwater Institute Vice President for Litigation Jon Riches argued that the Arizona Court of Appeals applied the wrong legal analysis when it concluded that Anderson had no implied private right to enforce the statute in court.
If a legal right exists, so does the right to enforce it.
That's the case we made before the Arizona Supreme Court today on behalf of @dr_owenanderson, a professor at ASU who is fighting for his right NOT to be forced into discriminatory DEI training. pic.twitter.com/OoPngHtixm
“Where there is a legal right, there is a legal remedy, is one of the oldest maxims in Anglo-American law,” Riches told the justices. “For decades, this court has applied that principle to find implied causes of action where a statute does not expressly create them. Yet without citing a single one of this court’s cases, the lower court did exactly what this court commanded it not to; it treated legislative silence as dispositive as to whether a statute creates a cause of action. But as this court [has held], legislative silence begins rather than ends the inquiry.”
In a post to X on Tuesday, Anderson invoked the legal maxim in Latin, writing, “‘ubi jus ibi remedium’ if there is a right there is a remedy. A cornerstone principle of common law. Yet @ASU and @AZRegents are asking the @AZCourts to suspend this principle and keep me as an employee from holding them responsible for racist DEI training.”
Anderson also shared a clip from the hearing in which Justice Clint Bolick characterized the right-remedy maxim as “the indispensable common law principle” and invoked Chief Justice John Marshall’s discussion of the principle in the landmark 1803 decision Marbury v. Madison.
Following the hearing, Anderson posted a statement saying, “That was an excellent hearing today before the @AZCourts. Jonathan Riches for @GoldwaterInst presented a solid case. The Justices asked the @AZRegents lawyer questions that exposed the contradiction at the heart of their claims, with their lawyer at one point stumbling so badly as to say, ‘I forgot the question.’ Oops! Now we wait for a decision.”
That was an excellent hearing today before the @AZCourts Jonathan Riches for @GoldwaterInst presented a solid case. The Justices asked the @AZRegents lawyer questions that exposed the contradiction at the heart of their claims, with their lawyer at one point stumbling so badly…
The Supreme Court limited its review to whether the Court of Appeals failed to apply the factors established in the court’s 1988 Transamerica Financial Corp. v. Superior Courtdecision before finding that A.R.S. § 41-1494 provides no implied private right of action.
Those factors include the statute’s context and language, its subject matter, its effects and consequences, and the law’s overall purpose. Riches argued that the lower court improperly treated the Legislature’s silence about a private cause of action as conclusive instead of beginning the broader analysis required under Transamerica.
The Arizona Board of Regents asked the justices to uphold the appellate ruling. In its supplemental brief to the Supreme Court, the board argued that courts should begin with the statutory text and consider secondary factors such as legislative history, consequences, and purpose only when the text is ambiguous.
The board maintained that § 41-1494 regulates government conduct without creating a private right or remedy. It also pointed to the statute’s annual compliance-reporting requirement and argued that lawmakers left enforcement to elected officials. The board said nearly all surrounding statutes contain express private rights of action, indicating that the Legislature deliberately omitted one from § 41-1494.
The statute prohibits the state, its agencies, and political subdivisions from requiring employees to undergo training, orientation, or therapy that presents blame or judgment based on race, ethnicity, or sex. It also prohibits the use of public money for such training and directs the Arizona Department of Administration to submit an annual compliance report to the governor and legislative leaders.
Anderson’s case began after ASU informed employees in October 2022 that they were required to complete its “Inclusive Communities” training. Anderson, a philosophy and religious studies professor, filed suit against the Board of Regents in 2024, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
Anderson alleges that the training presented prohibited concepts involving race, sex, and identity. His court filings cite training materials discussing “whiteness,” white supremacy, heterosexual privilege, land acknowledgments, and efforts to “decolonize the university.” The accompanying examination identified designated answers concerning systemic bias, transformative justice, and the incorporation of diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging throughout the university.
A Maricopa County Superior Court judge found that the statute contained no express private cause of action but concluded that it implied one for employees subjected to prohibited training. The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed that decision in December, finding that the statute “unambiguously does not create a private right of action.”
The Court of Appeals left Anderson’s underlying allegations about the training unresolved. The Supreme Court’s current review also concerns the enforcement question rather than whether the content of ASU’s training violated § 41-1494.
The Board of Regents has disputed that the training was mandatory. Anderson said the alleged injury arose from being required to undergo the training.
“Well, I think the hurt is in taking the training, and so I would ask them to consider it from their perspective if they were asked to sit through hours of training that involved racial discrimination against a group they identify with, they would be offended by that and feel hurt,” Anderson said. “So the hurt — the consequence — is just in the fact that I had to sit through that.”
Anderson previously asked the Supreme Court to accept the case after the appellate ruling, arguing that public employees would otherwise lack an effective way to enforce the training prohibition. Goldwater’s petition sought recognition of an implied private cause of action allowing employees to challenge alleged violations by government employers.
The Supreme Court took the case under advisement following Tuesday’s arguments. Anderson said that he intends to proceed toward trial if the justices recognize his right to bring the claim. The court has not announced a deadline for its decision.
Attorney General Kris Mayes is declining to investigate Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) for potential violations of open meeting law due to a potential conflict of interest.
Mayes referred the complaint, filed back in April, to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (MCAO).
The complaint accused SUSD Superintendent Scott Menzel of violating open meeting law concerning school closures and consolidations, specifically with regard to the operations of the Phase II Design Advisory Team tasked with handling those decisions. The governing board voted to close Pima Elementary School and Echo Canyon School last December.
According to the complaint, the district’s Phase II Design Advisory Team must be open to the public because it was formed at the direction of the board, not the superintendent. The design advisory team operates under the classification of a Superintendent Advisory Committee, which is exempt from Open Meeting Law requirements.
The Phase II Design Advisory team publicizes its past and upcoming meeting dates and materials but does not permit the public to attend the meetings. The team held five meetings as part of Phase A, which lasted from March through May, and recently concluded five meetings as part of Phase B, which lasted from June through earlier this month.
Menzel proposed the design advisory team during a regular governing board meeting last November, and the following month the board discussed the formation of the design advisory team in a regular meeting. The board didn’t vote at that latter meeting to form the design advisory team.
The citizen who filed the complaint told AZ Free News that MCAO informed him in late July that the attorney general’s office had referred the investigation to them. Caitlyn Mitchell, an attorney with the Civil Services Division, told the complainant that the attorney general could not investigate because it provides legal counsel to SUSD.
“The Arizona Attorney General’s Office referred your Open Meeting Law complaint against the Scottsdale Unified School District to us to avoid any potential conflict of interest because the AG’s Office also provides legal counsel to SUSD,” said Mitchell.
Around the time of our initial reporting, SUSD advised AZ Free News that their officials were not aware of the complaint filed against the district, nearly a month after the complaint had been filed.
AZ Free News asked the MCAO when the attorney general referred the complaint to their office, and when they might have the results of their investigation complete.
We also asked about communications with SUSD, given the lack of awareness the district initially had when the complaint was in the possession of the attorney general’s office.
MCAO didn’t respond to our inquiries.
Last summer, the attorney general’s office found SUSD in violation of open meeting law for engaging in actions similar to those that led to the creation of the Phase II Design Advisory Team.
“The Open Meeting Law does not permit a governing board to evade the public meeting requirements by ‘informally’ forming or establishing, or by directing a superintendent to establish, a committee to perform work that would otherwise need to be conducted in public,” stated Mayes. “[W]e caution against an overly narrow reading of the law focused exclusively on the circumstances of a committee’s creation.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Arizona is facing a lawsuit for its practice of providing in-state tuition to illegal aliens while denying those benefits to citizens in other states.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced its lawsuit against the state on Thursday.
Arizona voters narrowly approved in-state tuition for illegal aliens through the legislatively referred ballot measure, Proposition 308, in 2022. The proposition, heavily backed by progressive out-of-state dark money, also repealed a statute prohibiting illegal aliens from receiving state-funded financial aid.
“Prop. 308 constitutes blatant unequal treatment favoring illegal aliens over U.S. citizens. Worse, such preferential treatment is squarely prohibited and preempted by federal law[,]” stated the complaint. “Arizona law rewards an illegal alien with eligibility for in-state tuition, based on residency within Arizona, while explicitly denying eligibility for resident tuition rates to U.S. citizens who are not Arizona residents.”
According to a January report from the Arizona Center for Investigative Reporting, at least 720 illegal aliens have received in-state tuition at Arizona public universities and colleges since 2022. More than 400 of those illegal alien students attended Arizona State University.
Those totals may not be reflective of the whole, since only seven out of 22 schools were reportedly able to provide that data.
The DOJ estimated the total of illegal alien students represented $10.5 million in reduced tuition.
Worth noting: The financial calculations used in this lawsuit misinterpret AZCIR's findings. The number of students reported was cumulative since the program began, up until the fall 2025 semester (not in a single semester) pic.twitter.com/2jBVgNR1fr
As cited by the DOJ, federal law prohibits states from giving post-secondary education benefits to illegal aliens while denying them to American citizens residing in other states.
“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident,” states 8 U.S.C. § 1623(a).
The DOJ is also suing New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington for offering similar taxpayer-funded higher education to noncitizens. About half of the states in the union and the District of Columbia award in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens.
These lawsuits are the culmination of an effort directed by President Donald Trump last spring.
Last April, Trump issued an executive order calling on the four states to end in-state college tuition for illegal aliens and ordering the attorney general to take the actions necessary to ensure the end of those practices.
“The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and appropriate agency heads, shall identify and take appropriate action to stop the enforcement of State and local laws, regulations, policies, and practices favoring aliens over any groups of American citizens that are unlawful, preempted by Federal law, or otherwise unenforceable, including State laws that provide in-State higher education tuition to aliens but not to out-of-State American citizens that may violate 8 U.S.C. 1623 or that favor aliens in criminal charges or sentencing,” read the executive order.
Attorney General Kris Mayes, through spokesman Richie Taylor, said the DOJ’s interpretation of the law was flawed, echoing an opinion issued by her office last year.
“Proposition 308, as written and approved by Arizona voters, doesn’t condition eligibility on residence, which is what the government alleges,” stated Taylor. “It conditions eligibility on whether a student attended and graduated from an Arizona high school (or homeschool equivalent). That’s the standard the voters wrote into law — tied to where a student attended school and where they graduated, not their residency.”
Rep. Andy Biggs (AZ-05), the Republican nominee for governor, immediately expressed support last year for Trump’s executive order to end disparities in tuition benefits for in-state students
“President Trump is right — US citizens shouldn’t pay more for college tuition than illegal aliens,” said Biggs.
President Trump is right – US citizens shouldn’t pay more for college tuition than illegal aliens.
I have supported legislation sponsored by @DrPaulGosar to clarify federal law and ensure illegal aliens don’t get benefits that Americans don’t.
Gov. Katie Hobbs has supported and sought to expand eligibility for in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens. During her inaugural State of the State Address in 2023, the governor asked the Republican-led legislature to earmark $40 million in the budget to provide in-state tuition for illegal aliens.
HAPPENING NOW – @GovernorHobbs is meeting with a group of young undocumented immigrants brought to Arizona as children. They’re sharing how the “Promise for Dreamers” program would benefit them. It would allocate $40 million for scholarships that would go to Dreamers. @KTAR923pic.twitter.com/iUKsSL8Qmc
Arizona has not yet opted into a new tax credit to provide school choice funds for families, and the Trump administration is urging Gov. Katie Hobbs to join.
Linda McMahon, education secretary for the Department of Education (ED), chastised the governor during a touring event and press conference at the East Valley Institute of Technology on Tuesday.
Rep. Andy Biggs (AZ-05) — the Republican nominee for governor — and House Speaker Steve Montenegro (R-LD29) were present with McMahon.
The federal Education Freedom Tax Credit, signed into law through the One Big Beautiful Bill last year, enables individuals to receive a dollar-for-dollar federal tax credit up to $1,700 for contributing to approved K-12 scholarship-granting organizations.
ED defines qualifying scholarship granting organizations as those nonprofits that use contribution funds to provide scholarships for education-related services at both private and public schools. These nonprofits must use at least 90% of income on scholarships for educational choice options for K-12 students.
At the Tuesday event, McMahon accused Hobbs of denying Arizona students and their parents the access to “real” educational freedom.
“Governor Hobbs has vetoed three measures that would have allowed Arizona to participate in the Federal Education Freedom Tax Credit, holding Arizona families back from accessing these powerful opportunities expanding across the country,” said McMahon. “This is what real empowerment looks like, giving parents the freedom to choose the path that best serves their child, instead of forcing every student into a rigid, one-size-fits-all system.”
Hobbs must opt in and submit a certified list of scholarship granting organizations by Jan. 1, 2027, for Arizona to participate in the inaugural year of the program.
Even if Hobbs does not opt Arizona into the program, Arizona residents may still claim the tax credit. Instead of their credit going to Arizona students, however, those contributions will go to eligible students elsewhere in participating states.
Hobbs explained in her veto of SB 1142 that she wouldn’t opt Arizona into the program until the Trump administration issues regulatory guidance for it. She compared the tax credit program to the Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program, the state’s universal school choice program.
A bipartisan coalition of 30 states have opted into the federal education tax credit program so far: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
New York announced in May it would opt into the program but has not finalized that opt-in.
Four states have declined to join: Hawaii, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Oregon. Similar to Hobbs, the governor of Wisconsin vetoed legislation to opt into the program.
13 states and Washington, D.C. have yet to announce a decision: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.
Rep. Biggs, who is looking to unseat Hobbs this November, published a press release criticizing Hobbs’ refusal to allow Arizona to join the program.
“Because of her failure, Arizona students will miss out on scholarship dollars that could help pay for tuition, tutoring, technology, special education services, and other educational needs,” said Biggs. “Arizonans should not have to watch their tax dollars create educational opportunities for students in other states simply because their governor refuses to participate.”
McMahon also addressed a Scottsdale audience in a “Great American Comeback Tour” event hosted by the America First Policy Institute. The Republican nominee for Congressional District 1, Jay Feely, also participated in the panel.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
A Tempe school employee was arrested last weekend for alleged voyeurism involving security footage of minors for sexual gratification.
Antony Nikai Cruz, 28, is accused of downloading surveillance footage of girls ages 13 to 15 years old changing in a makeshift locker room amid renovations at Corona del Sol High School.
Cruz is facing one felony count of voyeurism for sexual gratification; his bond was set at $100,000.
Cruz was not a teacher, according to Tempe Union High School District (TUHSD) officials. While the district didn’t disclose what Cruz’s employment entailed in interviews with the media, TUHSD governing board records reflect that Cruz’s latest employment title was a surveillance officer for the district office, and that he has been with the district since at least the 2022-2023 school year.
Other board records reflect that Cruz provided more than security services for the district.
Records reflect that Cruz coached freshman wrestling at Marcos de Niza High School in 2024.
Records also reflect that Cruz worked as a safety and security officer at various times at Marcos de Niza High School, Mountain Pointe High School, Corona del Sol High School, and Desert Vista High School.
Governing board records further reflect the following for Cruz’s employment history with TUHSD:
July 1, 2024: worked extra duty at Corona del Sol High School
July 26, 2024: worked extra duty to provide security for an event at Corona del Sol High School
September 9, 2024: worked extra duty to provide security for an event at Desert Vista High School
November 4, 2024: worked extra duty to coach freshman wrestling at Marcos de Niza High School
May 1, 2025: worked extra duty at Marcos de Niza High School
May 21, 2025: worked extra duty at Desert Vista High School
June 24, 2026: employment changed from 1.0 safety and security officer at Marcos de Niza High School to 1.0 surveillance officer at the district office, effective July 1, 2026
July 1, 2026: worked extra duty as a safety and security officer at Mountain Pointe High School
The district placed Cruz on administrative leave the day prior to his arrest. He has since been terminated.
According to court records, Cruz was discovered to have downloaded the makeshift locker room footage during a security supervisor audit of security system activity late last week. Court records claim Cruz downloaded the footage in July.
That audit reportedly revealed that the camera download history indicated security footage had been exported to external drives, and the security system’s cloud storage history indicated access by an IP address believed to belong to Cruz’s household.
That TUHSD security supervisor contacted the Tempe Police Department about his findings. Police arrested Cruz at his home in south Phoenix on Saturday.
TUHSD issued a statement assuring the public that they believe the security footage was isolated to one camera on campus. TUHSD has also clarified that the existence of security cameras in the makeshift locker room was not standard, stating that the district doesn’t have cameras in classrooms, regular locker rooms, or other designated changing areas.
The investigation into Cruz is ongoing.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Grand Canyon University (GCU) is moving forward with plans to establish two new colleges focused on law and skilled trades as the university begins another record-breaking year.
GCU announced this week that it expects to serve approximately 141,000 students during the 2026-2027 academic year, representing a 6% increase from the previous year.
The university said the growth comes as it works to expand its academic offerings and respond to workforce demands in Arizona and across the country.
The planned College of Law and College of Construction and Industrial Technologies would become GCU’s 11th and 12th colleges.
“At a time when higher education is facing enormous disruption and uncertainty, GCU continues to grow because students and families are looking for something different,” said GCU President Brian Mueller. “They want a quality education grounded in Christian worldview principles that prepares them for a meaningful career, but they also want to be part of a community that helps them grow as people and understand the purpose behind their work.”
“Whether a student wants to become a lawyer, an engineer, an electrician, a nurse, a pastor, a teacher or a construction professional, we believe all work is sacred and has purpose,” he added.
A record 141,000 students are expected to delve into their studies at GCU in the 2026-27 academic year! GCU has also announced plans to establish the College of Law and the College of Construction and Industrial Technologies. Read more: https://t.co/I2vuoH5k5v
GCU is moving forward with plans to establish a College of Law that would incorporate a Christian worldview into its curriculum while emphasizing Constitutional law, free-market principles, and the rule of law.
The proposed law school has not yet received all of the necessary approvals. Its establishment remains subject to approval or accreditation from the Arizona Supreme Court justices, the Higher Learning Commission, the Arizona Board for Private Postsecondary Education, and the American Bar Association.
If those approvals are obtained, GCU said it would welcome its first law students as early as fall 2027 or spring 2028.
If the program ultimately receives American Bar Association accreditation, GCU would become the third ABA-accredited law school in Arizona, joining Arizona State University and the University of Arizona.
The university is currently conducting final interviews for the founding dean of the College of Law and expects to make a selection in the coming weeks.
“The legal profession plays a critical role in preserving the institutions and principles that make a free society possible,” Mueller said. “We believe there is an opportunity to create a law school that produces outstanding attorneys while also grounding students in a Christian worldview, a deep understanding of the Constitution and an appreciation for the principles of free markets, individual liberty and the rule of law.”
The proposed college would expand GCU’s focus beyond undergraduate education and provide students with a pathway into the legal profession while emphasizing service and leadership.
GCU is also preparing to launch its College of Construction and Industrial Technologies (CCIT), which will focus on workforce development and skilled trades.
The college is designed to offer multiple pathways into the workforce, ranging from short-term credentials and apprenticeships to bachelor’s degrees and eventually graduate-level education.
GCU said the goal is to allow students to enter the workforce after completing shorter-term programs and potentially return later to pursue additional education while already employed.
“For decades, students have been told they had to choose between college or the trades,” Mueller said. “CCIT is unique in that we offer both — an opportunity to experience life on a major college campus while also getting instruction specifically devoted to manufacturing, electrical work, micro-chip technology and construction. Those students might enter the workforce immediately after completing short-term credentials or an apprenticeship, then return later with a job in hand to pursue a four-year degree.”
The college will focus on fields including manufacturing, electrical work, microchip technology, and construction.
GCU mentioned it is working with companies including Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), Amkor, Lux Precision Manufacturing, Benchmark, and McCarthy Building Companies as part of its workforce-development efforts.
The partnerships are intended to help address labor shortages by combining academic instruction with hands-on technical training.
Mueller said Arizona’s continued growth in semiconductor manufacturing, advanced manufacturing, and construction has created demand for workers at multiple levels, including engineers, technicians, electricians, machinists, and construction professionals.
“Arizona is attracting billions of dollars in investment in advanced manufacturing, semiconductor production, construction and other industrial sectors,” Mueller said. “Those investments are creating significant demand not only for engineers and other professionals with four-year degrees, but also for thousands of highly skilled technicians, electricians, machinists, construction professionals and other tradespeople.”
The expansion comes as GCU prepares for another record enrollment year.
The university projects approximately 141,000 students for the 2026-27 academic year, including more than 24,000 students on its Phoenix campus and approximately 117,000 online students.
GCU said fully admissible students entering its Phoenix campus in 2025 had an average GPA of 3.6, while the Honors College reported an average weighted incoming GPA of 4.1.
The Honors College now has more than 3,400 students.
The university currently offers approximately 400 degrees, emphases, and certificates across 12 colleges.
As GCU expands its academic offerings, university officials said the two proposed colleges are intended to address different areas of eduction while supporting the same broader goal, preparing students for careers and encouraging them to contribute to their communities.
“America has historically been a nation of builders, and we want to help bring that back,” added Mueller. “These are high-skilled, in-demand, good-paying professions that can provide tremendous opportunities for students and their families while strengthening the communities and economy around them.”
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
