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.
Another legal fight is brewing in the State of Arizona.
Last week, Senate President Warren Petersen announced that he had “given the greenlight for the Senate to file a lawsuit against the Biden administration for their unconstitutional land grab in Arizona.”
I've given the greenlight for the Senate to file a lawsuit against the Biden administration for their unconstitional land grab in Arizona.
The legislative leader followed up his newsworthy tweet with an in-depth press release on Monday, explaining his reasoning and plan of action for contesting the recent move from the White House. The release asserted that “the blatantly unconstitutional move of confiscating nearly a million acres of land within Coconino and Mohave Counties to designate as a ‘national monument’ is nothing more than a publicity stunt to appeal to his radical environmental base, while in tandem creating dire consequences for the livelihoods of our citizens, Arizona’s economy, as well as our nation’s energy supply.”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: President @votewarren Gives the Green Light for Arizona Senate to File Lawsuit Against Biden Administration for Unconstitutional Land Grab ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/5fwkuVVbww
In a statement, Petersen said, “Our nation as a whole is suffering under the incompetence of the Biden Administration, and I will not sit back while he issues another unlawful executive order harming Arizonans. It’s clear he has declared war on American energy production, as our citizens continue to feel the pain of $5 a gallon gas under his radical agenda. Now, he wants to cripple mining across the U.S. and further exacerbate our dependency on dangerous foreign nations for our energy supply, which will continue to drive up costs for taxpayers amid historic inflation.”
Petersen added, “Using the guise of creating a ‘Grand Canyon’ national monument in a remote area that is not even connected to the Grand Canyon is completely disingenuous. This move has nothing to do with protecting the Grand Canyon. It has everything to do with fulfilling his tyrannic desires to block responsible mining and agriculture production in an effort to cater to the extremists who elected him into office. I look forward to fighting on behalf of Arizona in court.”
The Senate President is “directing attorneys to identify all citizens, industries and local governments impacted by this gross overreach and to create a coalition to further examine the detrimental effects President Biden’s land grab is imposing on our state.” He shared that a “fact-finding phase is currently underway, with a goal of filing suit against the Biden Administration by the end of 2023 or early 2024.”
During his visit to Arizona last month, President Joe Biden established the Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni – Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument. In his signed proclamation, Biden wrote, “Protecting the areas to the northeast, northwest, and south of the Grand Canyon will preserve an important spiritual, cultural, prehistoric, and historic legacy; maintain a diverse array of natural and scientific resources; and help ensure that the prehistoric, historic, and scientific value of the areas endures for the benefit of all Americans.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
The top prosecutor for Arizona’s largest county continues to take a tough stand against organized retail theft in her jurisdiction.
Last week, Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell announced that charges were being filed against an individual who allegedly robbed a jewelry store in Old Town Scottsdale.
The crime occurred in the late morning of September 1 at Marina Jewelers. People outside the store were alerted to the fact that a man running out of the store had purportedly stolen jewelry from the store, and acted to detain him until police arrived to make the arrest.
Mitchell revealed that the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office would be charging this individual with Class 2 Theft – in addition to other charges – because of the amount he tried to take from the store. The primary charge, she informed reporters, came with a mandatory prison sentence.
In her opening statement to the press, Mitchell explained that organized retail theft prosecutions have been a priority for her office – not only because of the impact on the businesses experiencing the direct heists – but because of the impact to the community, which includes empty buildings, and loss of jobs, services, or goods. She pointed out that the consequences of these crimes often affect poorer parts of town before trickling to more affluent neighborhoods, making it more difficult for consumers to acquire the goods and services they need for their everyday lives.
The County Attorney highlighted how other states and jurisdictions handle organized retail thefts – especially where prosecutors have set a threshold of $1,000 to activate charges. She emphasized to any potential or current criminals who may be watching: “in Arizona that has not been done.” Her office is willing to prosecute some cases, when appropriate, as felonies.
During her opening remarks, Mitchell twice stated that “this is not the state you want to be in to mimic the behavior you see on the news in other parts of the country, such as Los Angeles.” She referred to Los Angeles as a “hellscape,” in part, due to its lax standards for holding criminals accountable for their organized retail theft offenses.
From County Attorney @Rachel1Mitchell: "This is not the state you want to be in to mimic the behavior that you are seeing on the news in other parts of the country, such as Los Angeles." pic.twitter.com/Bhgl8GpOmY
— Maricopa County Attorney's Office (@marcoattorney) September 7, 2023
Later in her press conference, Mitchell returned to this issue of organized retail theft due to a reporter’s question. Mitchell shared that when she took office, she “felt like our specialized retail theft prosecutors were limited to too high of a dollar amount before they could get involved,” noting that some of these lawbreakers commit smaller offenses at place after place. She informed her audience that upon taking office, one of her initial acts was to lower the value threshold to allow her prosecutors to get involved in the cases earlier, and the second was to create a task force within the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office and link their efforts with those of the Arizona Retailers Association.
Mitchell promised that her office is continuing to look at ways to reduce the instances of organized retail theft in the county and to make sure that her jurisdiction does not become like Los Angeles.
In July 2022, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office formed an organized retail theft taskforce, featuring “a group of specialized prosecutors and detectives who will work with local law enforcement and the Arizona Retailer’s Association to address criminal acts involving organized retail theft.” Mitchell at that time said, “Retail stores are being devasted by groups who recklessly and intentionally take what they want and leave destruction in their wake. Many are organized gangs who have found new funding sources with stolen merchandise and the impact of this affects everyone of us.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Arizonans may have gained valuable insight into the future direction of their state – thanks to a surprising action from a neighboring state.
Last week, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham signed an Executive Order to declare a State of Public Health Emergency due to gun violence. According to the New Mexico Governor’s Office, Grisham’s action plan “includes a suspension of open and concealed carry laws in Bernalillo County, temporarily prohibiting the carrying of guns on public property with certain exceptions.”
Today, I signed an executive order declaring gun violence a public health emergency. To my fellow citizens: get loud. Step up. Demand change: from your neighbors, from your friends, from your communities, from your elected leaders. Enough is enough. More coming from me tomorrow. pic.twitter.com/jOt4fv4YDC
The move from the New Mexico Governor was met with both support and opposition, with even members of her own party taking issues with what or how the governor was using her executive powers in this situation.
While Grisham’s order was controversial enough, the Arizona House Democrats Caucus created news of its own by appearing to post an endorsement of the action.
Arizona Republicans currently hold slim majorities in both the state’s House and Senate chambers, but both political parties are vying for control of the Legislature in the next election. With a Democrat Governor at the helm of the state, a Democrat takeover of the state legislature would likely have serious repercussions from a policy standpoint, which would undoubtedly include some proposal or action against Second Amendment freedoms.
Republican Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell was quick to respond to the House Democrats’ post, vowing to see them in court if it ever came to that point on this issue of restricting Arizonans’ constitutional freedoms.
— County Attorney Rachel Mitchell (@Rachel1Mitchell) September 9, 2023
The General Counsel for the Arizona House Republicans, Linley Wilson, added, “Who’s going to tell them? Or maybe they already know that in addition to the AZ & U.S. constitutions, ARS 26-303(L) has been on the books in Arizona since 2007. Fun fact: the AZ House vote on SB 1258 to protect 2A rights during an ‘emergency’ was 55-0-5.”
Who’s going to tell them? Or maybe they already know that in addition to the AZ & U.S. constitutions, ARS 26-303(L) has been on the books in Arizona since 2007. Fun fact: the AZ House vote on SB 1258 to protect 2A rights during an “emergency” was 55-0-5. https://t.co/ZKcqj0C3UBpic.twitter.com/lnElXTaWv1
Jonathan Turley, a legal analyst and national columnist, opined on the latest from New Mexico, writing, “The order, in my view, is flagrantly unconstitutional under existing Second Amendment precedent. It could also be a calculated effort to evade a ruling by making the period of suspension so short. Many will of course celebrate the boldness of Grisham in taking away an individual right under a cleaver measure. It is, however, too cleaver by half. If not found moot at the end of the period, New Mexico could supply a vehicle to curtail future public health rationales.”
The order, in my view, is flagrantly unconstitutional under existing Second Amendment precedent. It could also be a calculated effort to evade a ruling by making the period of suspension so short…https://t.co/aURAa8Ict9
Arizona Senator Frank Carroll also weighed in on the New Mexico Governor’s decision, saying, “I’m appalled at what has transpired in the great state of New Mexico. Their radical Democrat Governor is setting a dangerous precedent by violating their law-abiding citizens’ constitutional right to protect themselves, their family, and their property against dangerous criminals. Every single American should be outraged at the reckless political agenda that continues to be forced by the Left to control you and undo the principles of freedom, liberty and democracy established by our nation’s Founding Fathers.”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: @RepFrankCarroll Condemns New Mexico's Ban on Guns, Vows to Protect Arizonans from Deliberate Violation of Constitutional Rights ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/VoVMjOyfAd
The state’s Senate President, Warren Petersen, made it abundantly clear that a Republican-led Legislature would not stand for such a measure from the governor, stating, “Criminals will be emboldened by the executive order issued by New Mexico’s governor. Law abiding citizens will be left unarmed as criminals ignore the law and paper executive orders. Takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. Takes good force to stop evil force.”
Criminals will be emboldened by the executive order issued by New Mexicos governor. Law abiding citizens will be left unarmed as criminals ignore the law and paper executive orders. Takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. Takes good force to stop evil force.
An internet search engine giant is making a significant investment in the Grand Canyon State.
Last week, Google unleashed a significant announcement, revealing that it would soon be constructing a $600 million data center in Mesa, marking the first time the company has put down physical roots in Arizona.
Governor Katie Hobbs, who attended the event with Google executives and other local leaders, issued the following statement to commemorate the news for her state: “Google’s investment in Arizona will be critical for the Mesa community and our state’s economy. Arizona continues to attract global technology leaders due to our skilled workforce, dynamic economy and focus on innovation. We are proud to welcome Google to Arizona and look forward to the many opportunities this partnership will bring.”
Google's $600 million investment in a new Mesa data center is a great example of how Arizona is leading the way in sustainable growth while creating good paying jobs in the process. There is no better time or place to invest in technology and innovation than right here and right… pic.twitter.com/ouUEMto0DT
Mesa Mayor John Giles added, “The City of Mesa is thrilled to welcome Google to our community. Google’s decision to designate Mesa as the home for its first facility in Arizona underscores its profound confidence in our city and residents.”
Mesa will be home to @Google's first facility in AZ, with an over $600 million investment into our community. Our city is a great place to locate a business and we continue to compete on a global scale. We look forward to a strong relationship with Google. https://t.co/rq9Nk76AHJpic.twitter.com/7k2bMyaf0R
According to a release published by the City of Mesa, “the new Mesa data center will help power popular digital services – like Google Search, Gmail, Maps, Google Cloud, and others – for people and organizations worldwide.”
The Vice President for Google’s Data Centers, Joe Kava, said, “We are proud to put down roots in Arizona with both the data center in Mesa and the Phoenix cloud region. Not only do data centers help keep digital services up and running for people and businesses, they are economic anchors in the communities where we operate. We are appreciative of the continued partnership with the local leadership across the state.”
In addition to the multi-million-dollar infrastructure project, Google revealed that the Phoenix area would soon be welcoming “a new Google Cloud region to complement its existing network of regions around the world, bringing Google Cloud technologies closer to local customers – ranging from small, medium and large businesses to public sector entities and other organizations – to help them deliver digital services to their own users more reliably and at higher speeds.”
The Arizona Governor’s Office stated that “Google’s Mesa facility is the first data center in the United States to use zero-water cooling and has announced plans to be completely carbon-free and pursue net-zero emissions across its operations by 2030.”
Per an internal economic report, Google “helped provide $11.43 billion of economic activity for tens of thousands of Arizona businesses, publishers, nonprofits, creators and developers in 2022,” and “more than 367,000 Arizona businesses used Google’s free tools to receive phone calls, bookings, reviews, requests for directions and other direct connections to their customers.” Google also “provided $15.55 million of free search advertising to Arizona nonprofits through the Google Ad Grants program in 2022.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
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.
