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 House Minority Whip Stacey Travers (D-LD12) is pledging to renew her effort to require clergy to report suspected ongoing or future child abuse disclosed through confidential religious communications. Her legislation failed to advance this year, while the Arizona Supreme Court recently issued a ruling defining the scope of the state’s clergy reporting exemption.
Travers introduced HB 2039 in December. The bill would have amended Arizona’s clergy reporting exemption to require members of the clergy, Christian Science practitioners, and priests to report when there is reasonable suspicion that abuse is ongoing, will continue, or may threaten other minors.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Quang Nguyen (R-LD1) has opposed Travers’ proposals and has said he will not give the measure a hearing while he remains chairman. Nguyen, who is Catholic, said that Travers would have to wait until 2029, when he is no longer a legislator, for the bill to receive a hearing.
“I’m going to be very frank about this,” he said, “this bill has absolutely zero to do with reporting crimes because duty to report already exists in the state of Arizona, just not in the confessional booth,” Nguyen previously told LifeSiteNews. “That is all.… This is a way to go out and destroy our Church. Nothing more, nothing less.”
Congressman and GOP gubernatorial nominee Andy Biggs described the bill at the time as “a terrible attack on Catholics in Arizona by, of course, a Democrat. This bill should never see the light of day.”
A terrible attack on Catholics in Arizona by, of course, a Democrat. This bill should never see the light of day.
Current Arizona law requires specified mandatory reporters who reasonably believe a minor has been abused or neglected to report that information. Clergy may currently withhold a confession or confidential communication when they determine that maintaining confidentiality is “reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion.” The exemption applies to the confidential communication itself and does not cover a clergy member’s independent observations of a minor.
HB 2039 would have narrowed that exemption. Under the proposed language, clergy could withhold information concerning abuse that had already occurred unless there was reasonable suspicion that the abuse remained ongoing, would continue, or could threaten other minors. It also would have amended Arizona’s civil clergy-penitent privilege to permit examination of a priest or clergyman concerning a confession when the clergy member determined it involved ongoing abuse.
Under the state’s existing reporting statute, failure to make a required report is generally a class 1 misdemeanor. Failure to report a statutorily defined “reportable offense,” which includes several sexual offenses involving minors, is a class 6 felony.
HB 2039 was assigned to the House Judiciary and Rules committees and received its second reading in January. It did not advance before the Legislature adjourned.
Travers said that she distinguishes between protected religious confession and circumstances in which someone discloses continuing abuse.
“There is a special case when you’re confessing to somebody in your religious organization,” Travers said, describing a confession involving a search for “absolution and contrition.”
She described an admission of ongoing child abuse made with the expectation that clergy will not report it as a “conditional” confession and said she intends to continue pursuing legislation addressing those circumstances.
Nguyen also blocked a similar proposal by Travers in 2023. At the time, Travers said the legislation grew out of the case involving Paul Adams, a Bisbee man, after he disclosed abuse to leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS).
That case eventually reached the Arizona Supreme Court.
According to the court, Adams disclosed sexual abuse to Bishop John Herrod around 2011 and later repeated the disclosure during a meeting involving his wife. Herrod subsequently informed Bishop Robert Mauzy, who convened a church disciplinary council. Adams again disclosed the abuse during that proceeding and was excommunicated.
The abuse came to the attention of federal authorities in 2017 after the Department of Homeland Security discovered a video online. Adams and his wife were subsequently indicted. Adams died by suicide in jail before trial, while his wife pleaded guilty and was sentenced to prison, according to the Supreme Court’s opinion.
Three of the children later sued the church and several church officials, alleging in part that they failed to comply with Arizona’s reporting law.
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment generally prevents courts and juries from deciding whether clergy correctly applied religious doctrine when determining that withholding a report was reasonable and necessary under their religion, absent fraud or collusion for a secular purpose.
The court also held that religious institutions are entitled to substantial deference in defining what constitutes a “confession,” a “confidential communication,” and who qualifies as clergy. The justices vacated a Court of Appeals decision and affirmed summary judgment for the church defendants.
The court emphasized that its decision concerned interpretation of Arizona law and federal constitutional protections rather than the factual merits of the children’s abuse allegations.
A separate unanimous Arizona Supreme Court ruling issued Aug. 12 further defined the limits of clergy privilege.
In Rodriguez-Ramirez v. State of Arizona, the court held that a communication between a Phoenix pastor accused of sexually abusing his co-pastor’s teenage niece and the co-pastor did not qualify as a protected “confession” under Arizona’s criminal clergy-penitent privilege.
The justices defined a confession as a confidential admission of a crime, sin, or fault to clergy for the purpose of seeking spiritual absolution, consolation, or guidance. Because the communication in that case did not meet the court’s standard, the justices affirmed the superior court’s decision allowing a secretly recorded conversation to be used in the criminal case.
The dispute over Travers’ proposal has particular implications for Catholic priests because Catholic canon law declares the sacramental seal of confession inviolable and prohibits a confessor from disclosing what a penitent reveals during the sacrament.
The Arizona Legislature is scheduled to begin its next regular session in January, when Travers said she intends to renew the proposal.
Teachers’ union activists were once again dealt a serious blow after the Arizona Supreme Court issued an order effectively removing an initiative from the ballot that aimed to undo the state’s universal school choice program.
Nearly four years ago to date, a similar initiative was removed from the ballot for failing to have the required number of signatures. Katie Hobbs, secretary of the state at the time and now the governor, held out on invalidating the ballot initiative.
The court’s order to recalculate the signature totals using the trial court’s formula, issued on Tuesday, is projected to have brought Proposition 212, the Protect Education Act, below the required signature total following a legal challenge filed by the Goldwater Institute in Clark v. Fontes.
Protect Education Accountability Now, the political action committee (PAC) behind the Protect Education Act, confirmed that the Arizona Supreme Court order meant their initiative would not qualify for the ballot.
The PAC blamed “big money in partnership with Republican lawmakers and the anti-public education lobby” for the initiative’s demise.
A spokesperson for the PAC stated that the initiative should have been included on the ballot regardless of the invalid signatures.
“This does not reflect what Arizona voters want. It does not reflect the overwhelming support of educators, parents and public school advocates across the state who volunteered their time and demanded a voice in reforming a program that abused taxpayer money and pulled funding from their neighborhood public schools,” said the spokesperson. “Instead, the hard-earned resources educators raised to fund this were buried under a mountain of big money, political power, and a system that consistently sides with special interests.”
— Protect Education Ballot Initiative (@ProtectEdAct) August 18, 2026
Activists submitted around 420,000 signatures to qualify for the ballot. Pending a review incited by the Goldwater Institute’s court challenge, the number of valid signatures will fall to a projected total of approximately 245,000. The initiative needed approximately 256,000 to qualify for the ballot.
Nearly 70,000 signatures were invalidated due to their discovery as duplicates or having been collected by legally ineligible circulators, like felons. The court also upheld the trial court ruling which invalidated entire sheets of signatures due to the petition circulator providing an address at which they weren’t living.
The ballot measure would have rolled back the universality of the Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program by imposing an income cap.
The union-backed Protect Education Act appears to have fallen short of the valid signatures needed to make the November ballot.
In this special Keep Arizona Free Update with @Darla4freedom:
➡️ The campaign submitted roughly between 416,000-421,000 signatures, but after trial… pic.twitter.com/l7886cgtT9
The court also agreed with a lower court ruling that the ballot language drafted by Secretary of State Adrian Fontes was false and misleading because it used the term “voucher” to describe the ESA program. Vouchers must be spent immediately and only at certain approved schools, whereas ESA program funds may be rolled over and applied to various schooling types and educational resources.
The PAC behind this second failed initiative to end universal school choice raised more than $7.5 million and spent more than $7.2 million.
More than $6.5 million, or 87%, came from the National Education Association. $810,000, or nearly 11%, came from the Arizona Education Association.
Other major donors included $50,000 from the United Food and Commercial Workers Active Ballot Club, the PAC of a D.C.-based union; and $50,000 from Arizonans for Quality Education, a corporation or LLC based in Phoenix.
The latter entity was formerly known as Friends of ASBA, with ASBA standing for the Arizona School Boards Association, and was registered as a domestic nonprofit corporation, according to Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) records.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the city of Phoenix must release records of their closed-door labor union negotiations.
The ruling came from a challenge initiated in 2022 by the Goldwater Institute regarding the refusal of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association’s (PLEA), the police union, to publicize its draft contract proposals for public comment prior to negotiations with the city.
The PLEA proposal concerned its 2023-2024 memorandum of understanding (MOU) which contained expenditure terms for tens of millions of taxpayer dollars as well as the employment terms for law enforcement.
Rather than submitting drafts of the MOU for public review and comment by early December as required by city code, PLEA submitted letters of intent mentioning its aim to negotiate wages and benefits. The Phoenix City Council chose to accept those letters of intent as sufficient for the public to comment on without seeing draft MOUs.
Goldwater Institute requested those draft MOUs. The city refused, claiming these documents were exempt from public records requests under state law allowing exemptions based on the “best interests of the state” because disclosure “could create a chilling effect” on negotiations.
Only after the city and PLEA reached a final agreement did they publicize a draft MOU for public comment in April 2023. The city ratified the MOU about two weeks later, in early May 2023.
That MOU has since expired, having lasted only through June 2024.
The trial court had ruled that the city had sufficiently established “potential material harm” that could occur from disclosing draft MOU materials.
“While significant, the general concerns about transparency, advocacy, and accountability identified by [Goldwater] are different, however, from the particularized interest in preserving the ability to negotiate labor agreements free of political pressure, collusion, and unnecessary delay due to impasse,” said the trial court. “The City provided testimony from individuals directly involved in the collective bargaining process and with experience in labor negotiations with and for the City of Phoenix.”
However, the Arizona Supreme Court in its ruling said that speculative claims of harm were insufficient alone.
The court determined that the city would have to release some or all of the MOU records that it had withheld. In order to determine the nature of such a release, the court ordered the lower court to review the withheld documents.
The court ruled that it was the city’s burden to prove the likelihood of specific, material harm that would occur from the disclosure of contested public records, as well as the causal connection between the disclosure and that harm that could occur.
The Goldwater Institute said in a press release that the high court ruling affirmed citizens’ rights of public disclosure and an ability to provide input.
“City residents and taxpayers deserve to know what the union was demanding and what city leaders were offering during that process. But all of that was kept hidden from the public,” stated the Goldwater Institute. “Citizens have a right to know what their government is up to and should have an opportunity to provide feedback about labor negotiations and other public activities. As today’s decision affirms, that’s the whole point of our public records laws.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
