The Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) has confirmed an independent review of the Arizona State University (ASU) hockey team coaching staff will take place.
Rep. Matt Gress (R-LD4) and Sen. Hildy Angius (R-LD30), who called for the independent review last week in their respective roles as chairs of the House and Senate education committees, thanked ABOR in a joint press release on Monday.
Matthew Mayich, a 21-year-old Canadian, collapsed from heat stroke during a workout with the ASU hockey team in August. Mayich had recently transferred to ASU and had only been in the Valley for about a week before he was subjected to an outdoor workout let by an outside workout instructor with a military background. Mayich is currently in a coma and on life support; while his family holds out for a recovery, his lawyers say it would take “a miracle.”
ASU acceded to requests from lawmakers and Mayich’s family for an independent review and last Friday appointed Scott Bales, a former chief justice of the Arizona Supreme Court, to lead it.
ASU is maintaining a dedicated page addressing the incident and all related updates.
“The Board has confirmed that Chief Justice Bales will examine what happened to Matthew Mayich on August 20 and what happened afterward,” said Gress. “That is what we asked for. Chief Justice Bales is highly respected, and we appreciate the Board of Regents and ASU giving him the independence and access he needs to get the facts.”
Bales was tasked with reviewing the facts identified by ASU, the Mayich family attorneys, ASU hockey team members’ attorneys, and law enforcement agencies.
Members of the ASU hockey team issued a statement of facts through counsel that largely disputed the initial analysis published by ASU.
Additionally, Bales will make recommendations on planning and approval of outdoor athletic activities; staffing, policies, and procedures for outdoor athletic activities; preparation for and response to adverse events or reactions occurring during outdoor activities; and use of outside consultants in the planning and delivery of strength and conditioning and practice activities.
ASU requested Bales complete his review by early December, and promised that additional updates would be provided as they become available.
ABOR Chair Doug Goodyear told Gress and Angius in a letter on Monday that President Michael Crow provided ABOR with updates and a plan for Bales’ independent review.
Per Goodyear, Bales will have full access to university information including staff, records, and policies, with full cooperation of university staff. The review will allow for anonymity to prevent reprisals, and Bales has license to hire any and all outside help he feels is necessary to complete the review.
“Justice Bales is a man of unquestioned integrity and independence,” said Goodyear. “As an Arizonan, he has a real commitment to helping this community understand the circumstances of this tragic event, and he will have both the access and the resources to do this job well.”
Mayich’s family issued a statement through lawyers contending that the independent review already falls short because it doesn’t address who bears responsibility for Mayich’s collapse. One of their lawyers, Rob Carey, stated as much to CBC News.
“What is necessary, and what the Mayich family has asked for and deserves, is an investigation of what went wrong on that field and who is responsible,” said Carey. “Justice Bales has not been asked to answer those fundamental questions.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Legislative leaders are petitioning the Arizona Board of Regents for an independent investigation into Arizona State University (ASU) over the near-fatal hockey team workout that occurred last month.
State Rep. Matt Gress (R-LD4) and State Sen. Hildy Angius (R-LD30), respective chairs of the Arizona House and Senate education committees, issued a joint statement urging an outside review after ASU hockey players were subjected to a workout last month that caused one player, 21-year-old Matthew Mayich, to collapse from heat stroke.
Mayich was hospitalized and remains in a coma on life support. It is unclear whether he will recover.
The lawmakers issued their statement following a 26-page letter sent to ASU President Michael Crow from seven members of the hockey team on Monday that heavily disputed ASU’s own initial findings.
The letter disputed key facts regarding ASU coaching staff adherence to heat acclimatization protocol and workout approval policy, the nature of the near-fatal workout, availability and application of heat stroke preventative equipment and water breaks, and the timeline and treatment of Mayich’s deteriorating condition.
Gress said that an outside investigation would be the only way to determine the truth behind this incident.
“Seven players who were on that field have raised serious questions that ASU’s own review does not answer,” said Gress. “We need an independent investigation to determine whether ASU followed its own rules, who was responsible for protecting these athletes, and what happened when Matthew Mayich showed signs of distress. ASU should not be left to investigate its own conduct and decide whether anyone should be held accountable.”
Angius also encouraged the board to secure an outside investigator in order to assure protection to the players behind the letter, who submitted it anonymously through counsel out of fear of retaliation.
“Student-athletes should never have to choose between telling the truth and protecting their scholarship, roster spot, or playing time,” said Angius. “If players fear retaliation for speaking about what happened to a teammate, the Regents need to act. They should protect these students and appoint an investigator who answers to the Board, not ASU.”
🚨House and Senate Education Chairs Call for Independent Investigation of ASU Hockey Workout
Chairman Gress and Chairman Angius ask Board of Regents for outside review after seven players dispute ASU’s account of August 20 workout
The players’ letter alleged that the workout instructor and the workout plan for that day weren’t approved; the session lasted more than 75 minutes, not 45 minutes per the ASU report; Mayich and other players weren’t acclimatized to the heat and received no water during the workout; Mayich and other players were made to continue the workout despite showing signs of physical distress; emergency equipment to treat heat stroke wasn’t on the field; and staff improperly treated Mayich’s heat stroke.
The report further alleged that an assistant coach observed Mayich exhibiting signs of disorientation about an hour into the workout, but took photos and videos instead of intervening. About a half hour later, an assistant coach observed Mayich exhibiting signs of disorientation and directed players instead of trained staff to assist Mayich. Mayich was allegedly sat up instead of laid down to rest, squirted with water rather than immersed, and kept in the sun rather than removed to a shaded area.
The report alleged that some, but not all players, were only given one water break for less than a minute throughout the whole workout. Mayich allegedly didn’t receive any water.
On Tuesday, Mayich’s parents issued a statement calling for the removal of coaches who ran the workout that hospitalized their son pending an independent investigation. Greg Powers, the team’s head coach, and his assistant coaches were on the field that day.
Powers had selected the workout instructor: an Army special forces veteran named Tim Ziesel reported to suffer from serious and lasting issues with decision-making and emotional regulation, among other problems, incurred from a 2023 motorcycle crash.
“The players shouldn’t have to worry about retaliation from the people they report to every day. And there are plenty of former college and pro players in the Valley who could step in and help,” stated the Mayiches. “Mostly, we want accountability for what happened to our son, and we want his teammates to be safe.”
Mayich, a native of Ontario, Canada, was a recent transfer to ASU; this season would have been his first with the Sun Devils. Mayich was previously drafted to the National Hockey League in 2023, but didn’t sign a contract.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
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.
The Arizona Supreme Court will hear arguments Sept. 1 in Arizona State University (ASU) professor Owen Anderson’s effort to pursue a lawsuit alleging the school’s mandatory employee training violated state law. The law bars public employers from requiring training that assigns blame or judgment based on race, ethnicity, or sex.
The justices agreed to review whether the Arizona Court of Appeals should have applied factors established in a 1988 state Supreme Court decision before concluding that the law gives employees no implied private right to sue. The court’s review is limited to that enforcement question.
Anderson’s allegation that ASU violated the law remains unresolved. The Court of Appeals also did not decide whether the training’s contents violated the statute.
As AZ Free News reported in February, Anderson asked the high court to take the case after the Court of Appeals held in December that the statute supplied no private cause of action. His attorneys at the Goldwater Institute argued in their petition that the ruling departed from the method Arizona courts have used to determine whether lawmakers intended an implied remedy.
ASU forced a professor to take DEI training as a condition of employment.
ASU required employees to complete its “Inclusive Communities” module, one of three employee-training modules described in the Court of Appeals’ memorandum decision. According to Goldwater’s case materials, employees were instructed to repeat the training every two years, and Anderson viewed but did not complete the module or its accompanying quiz. The philosophy professor brought his lawsuit against the Arizona Board of Regents in 2024, alleging that the training presented race- and sex-based concepts prohibited by state law.
The statute bars the state and its political subdivisions from requiring employee training 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. The law exempts sexual harassment training from its restrictions.
“Ultimately, the question now before the Arizona Supreme Court isn’t a left or right issue—and it’s not just about DEI—it’s about whether a state employee has the right to hold their employer accountable when it violates the law,” Anderson said in a statement released by the Goldwater Institute.
In a statement to AZ Free News, Dr. Anderson added, “This case is now an employment case. ABOR/ASU is arguing a state employee does not have standing to hold them accountable for breaking § 41-1494. That means this is not a conservative vs. liberal issue. It is an employment issue that will affect all state employees going forward.”
A Maricopa County Superior Court judge denied the Board of Regents’ motion to dismiss Anderson’s statutory claim. The judge found that the Legislature had created an implied right for affected public employees to enforce the prohibition, despite the absence of an express authorization to sue. The Board then filed a special-action petition with the Court of Appeals, which accepted jurisdiction and vacated that portion of the trial court’s ruling.
The appellate panel concluded that the statute’s text contains neither an express nor an implied private right of action. It pointed to the statutory compliance reporting system and said a mandamus action could compel officials to submit the required reports. The panel left the superior court free to consider a separate request for equitable or declaratory relief if a proper party raises that issue on remand, according to the December decision
Goldwater’s petition for review argues that the appellate court should have applied the factors set out in Transamerica Financial Corp. v. Superior Court. Those factors include the statute’s context, language, subject matter, effects, consequences, spirit, and purpose. Goldwater contends that the law protects an identifiable group of public employees and that the reporting requirement does not give an employee a remedy after an alleged violation.
In its supplemental brief, the Board of Regents argues that the Court of Appeals correctly began with the statutory text. The Board says the provision prohibits specified government conduct without granting individuals a cause of action, and that the Legislature’s inclusion of a reporting system shows the enforcement approach it selected. It also points to express private remedies in surrounding statutes and argues that the Legislature deliberately left them out of § 41-1494.
Goldwater Vice President for Litigation Jon Riches said that lawmakers intended state employees to be able to challenge alleged violations in court.
“There is no doubt that when Arizona lawmakers banned mandatory DEI trainings for state workers, they intended for those workers to have ability to challenge their employers in court,” Riches said. “We’re now asking for the Arizona Supreme Court to correct the lower court’s error and restore Arizonans’ right to hold government agencies accountable when they violate the law.”
The hearing comes as Arizona voters prepare to consider Proposition 142 on the November ballot. The separate proposed constitutional amendment would expand the state’s prohibition on preferential treatment and restrict compelled support for race- or ethnicity-based preferential treatment in public education and employment, according to the official ballot language.
Arizona State University (ASU) has ceased its effort to take the home of an 89-year-old Phoenix man via eminent domain.
ASU sought to acquire the historic Louis Emerson House owned for more than 50 years by Robert Young. The university had intended to acquire the property as part of its new headquarters for ASU Health and its planned AI-driven medical school.
ASU dropped its eminent domain case on Friday.
The Louis Emerson House predates Arizona’s statehood by a decade. As AZ Free Newsreported last month, the property was developed in 1888 by the former adjutant general and attorney general, Clark Churchill, and its namesake came later in memory of a former owner who was a butcher with the Palace Meat Market in the early 20th century. It was Young who recovered these facts about the property and its history.
ASU had initially offered Young about $800,000 to sell, but Young declined the offer since it wouldn’t cover the cost to move the house. According to Young, accepting the offer would have meant the house’s demolition — an outcome he couldn’t accept given his desire to keep a piece of Phoenix history alive.
The Arizona Board of Regents then filed an eminent domain lawsuit to force the sale of the house with the Maricopa County Superior Court.
The ASU Health campus is projected to span 200,000 square feet, with a planned opening date scheduled for the fall of 2028.
Nearly 12,000 people signed a petition to save the historic Louis Emerson House from demolition.
ASU said in a statement that it would no longer seek eminent domain and instead allow the house to remain. ASU noted that it would adjust its construction plans to work around the home.
“ASU has been working toward a resolution with the Emerson House in downtown Phoenix, a house that sits next to land being developed for the headquarters of ASU Health,” said the spokesperson. “To honor the homeowner’s desires, the university has agreed to withdraw its court proceedings and allow the house to remain. The plans for the ASU Health site will be revised accordingly.”
Young credited John Rich, a country music singer and political pundit, for securing this victory. Rich was sworn in earlier this month by the Trump administration to serve as special envoy for American landowners.
Rich issued a statement to social media on Saturday explaining that ASU decided to drop the eminent domain case after he engaged in conversations with ASU President Michael Crow. Rich said Crow had promised to “take a look at” covering the court costs Young has undertaken to keep his home.
“Mr. Young, we took care of you, sir,” said Rich. “Big shout of to Dr. Crow, the president of Arizona State University, for having a heart and a soul and seeing this from Mr. Young’s perspective. I couldn’t ask for more. Big win for American landowners today.”
Rich also credited Turning Point Action for making him aware of Young’s plight.
Shout out to @FaithFamilyLiz from Arizona who initially helped me connect with Mr Young and his attorney. Without her help, it would have taken me much longer to win this battle. I've never met her in person, only here on X, but she was a HUGE help!🇺🇸 https://t.co/cnvBoHkJm5
Rich encouraged Americans to report unfair land grabs to USDA.gov/lawfare, the new reporting portal by the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to address lawfare waged against farmers, ranchers, agricultural producers, and other USDA customers.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
