A controversial Texas border security bill experienced major whiplash on Tuesday in federal court.
In a shocking development for the legal situation of SB 4, a majority of Justices at the Supreme Court of the United States lifted its administrative stay of the Texas law after it had twice paused enforcement. The pending case and actions before the nation’s high court occurred after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had reversed a District Court decision to issue a preliminary injunction for the state border law, allowing the new policy to temporarily go into effect.
SB 4 was approved by the Texas Legislature in November 2023 and signed in December 2023. According to the bill summary, SB 4 would “amend the Penal Code to make it a Class B misdemeanor offense for a person who is an alien to enter or attempt to enter Texas directly from a foreign nation at any location other than a lawful port of entry;” and it would also “make it an offense for a person who is an alien to enter, attempt to enter, or be found in Texas after the person has been denied admission to or excluded, deported, or removed from the United States or has departed from the United States while an order of exclusion, deportation, or removal is outstanding.”
However, hours after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its surprising order, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked the Texas law, pending a decision on the merits of the case. The federal appeals court considered arguments from both sides on Wednesday, making an expedited opinion extremely likely on the enforceability of the law.
Before the late-night action at the Fifth Circuit, Arizona legislative Republicans reacted to the news from the Supreme Court. Senate President Warren Petersen said, “The Arizona Governor has vetoed legislation that would have given Arizona’s law enforcement the ability to protect our citizens from the invasion occurring at the southern border. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to allow Texas’ S.B.4 to go into effect shows that the Governor’s veto was rash and hasty. She will soon have the opportunity to do the right thing, as we will give her another chance to sign this bill into law to protect Arizonans from border-related crimes.”
🚨 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Senate Republicans Applaud SCOTUS for Allowing Texas to Protect its Citizens Against Biden's Border Invasion and Call on Hobbs to do the Same for Arizonans@votewarren@AZSenatorShamppic.twitter.com/73luDz0jQC
Senator Janae Shamp also released a statement after the court decision, focusing on her ongoing efforts to enact the Arizona Border Invasion Act into law. Shamp’s bill was passed by both chambers of the Arizona Legislature earlier this month but fell victim to the first veto this session from Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs. The first-term lawmaker wrote, “While Joe Biden continues to neglect the national security crisis of this border invasion that’s allowing deadly fentanyl, terrorists, human smugglers, child sex traffickers, rapists, murderers, and other dangerous criminals to forever change our communities and the lives of Arizonans, state legislatures across the country are rightfully overriding the failures of his administration and Arizona is no different. We are urging Hobbs to not fail Arizonans again, and to sign our legislation when it hits her desk.”
State Representative Austin Smith echoed Shamp’s comments, calling on Hobbs to join legislative Republicans in addressing the border crisis. He stated, “The states can defend their borders. Governor Hobbs sign the border bills, end this madness and dangerous influx of illegals coming to Arizona. Do your job and defend the state.”
The states can defend their borders. @GovernorHobbs sign the border bills, end this madness and dangerous influx of illegals coming to Arizona.
Other border related bills are currently making their way through the Arizona Legislature. Governor Hobbs is expected to oppose all Republican efforts to mitigate the border crisis from the state level.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
The Grand Canyon State welcomed a grand manufacturing funding expansion this week.
On Wednesday, President Joe Biden appeared in Chandler, Arizona, at the Intel Ocotillo location to “announce that the Department of Commerce has reached a preliminary agreement with Intel to provide up to $8.5 billion in direct funding along with $11 billion in loans under the CHIPS and Science Act.” According to a White House fact sheet, this investment would “support the construction and expansion of Intel facilities in Arizona, Ohio, New Mexico, and Oregon, creating nearly 30,000 jobs and supporting tens of thousands of indirect jobs.”
Today, President Biden announced a historic agreement with Intel to build and expand four semiconductor manufacturing facilities here in America – helping put us on track to manufacture 20% of the world’s leading-edge chips by the end of the decade. pic.twitter.com/EeUtyFTw3R
In a post on “X” after his speech, President Biden wrote, “Semiconductors are the tiny computer chips smaller than a fingertip that power our everyday lives. We invented them, but over time we moved manufacturing overseas. I came to office determined to bring their production home. That’s what our CHIPS Act does.”
Semiconductors are the tiny computer chips smaller than a fingertip that power our everyday lives.
We invented them, but over time we moved manufacturing overseas.
I came to office determined to bring their production home.
Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs attended the event at Intel and spoke to attendees. After the announcement, Hobbs championed the increased funding for a vital sector within her state, saying, “I’m excited to announce that Intel will receive a historic investment from the CHIPS Act, made possible thanks to President Biden’s leadership. This critical investment will drive innovation, create jobs, and solidify Arizona’s position as a leader in semiconductor manufacturing.”
I’m excited to announce that @Intel will receive a historic investment from the CHIPS Act, made possible thanks to @POTUS' leadership. This critical investment will drive innovation, create jobs, and solidify Arizona’s position as a leader in semiconductor manufacturing. pic.twitter.com/cu0CC6k4qq
Hobbs added, “Our success story is only possible with our exceptional workforce. BuildItAZ, Future48 Workforce Accelerators, and semiconductor apprenticeships will help ensure Arizonans are ready to take advantage of these good paying jobs. Intel has been a leader in the Arizona business community for decades. Thank you to CEO Pat Gelsinger for continuing our partnership. Your vision and leadership are driving innovation, creating jobs, and strengthening Arizona’s position in the global semiconductor industry.”
Gina Raimondo, the Secretary of the Commerce Department, also took part in the gathering at Intel. She shared, “Today, we announced an $8.5 billion preliminary agreement with Intel that will help strengthen supply chains, revitalize American semiconductor manufacturing, and create nearly 30,000 jobs. It was great to join President Biden in Arizona to share the news.”
Today, we announced an $8.5 billion preliminary agreement with @Intel that will help strengthen supply chains, revitalize American semiconductor manufacturing, and create nearly 30,000 jobs.
“Today is a defining moment for the U.S. and Intel as we work to power the next great chapter of American semiconductor innovation,” said Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger. “AI is supercharging the digital revolution and everything digital needs semiconductors. CHIPS Act support will help to ensure that Intel and the U.S. stay at the forefront of the AI era as we build a resilient and sustainable semiconductor supply chain to power our nation’s future.”
Huge news for American semiconductor manufacturing and technology leadership.
State Sen. Eva Burch (D-LD09) called her GOP colleagues “cruel” for restricting her ability to abort her child.
Burch made the remarks in a speech on the Senate floor on Monday. The senator said that she learned that her pregnancy was not progressing — nonviable — and that she had opted for abortion rather than wait on a miscarriage.
“I’m choosing abortion because I’m pregnant and for reasons that I should not have to explain to you, or to the church, or to the state of Arizona. I need to not be pregnant anymore. That’s the best outcome for me,” said Burch.
Burch said she was unable to receive an abortion from an abortion clinic last Friday as quickly as she desired due to state law requiring an ultrasound, informed consent, and a 24-hour waiting period.
“I don’t think people should have to justify their abortions,” said Burch. “There’s no one-size-fits-all for people seeking abortion care, and the legislature doesn’t have any right to assign one.”
Arizona law requires an abortionist to obtain the “voluntary and informed consent” of a mother based on the diagnosed condition of her unborn children.
A mother given a lethal fetal diagnosis must be advised of perinatal hospice services as an alternative to abortion. A lethal fetal condition is defined as a pre-birth diagnosis expected to result in the death of the unborn child within three months after birth.
A mother given a nonlethal fetal diagnosis must be advised of the range of outcomes for individuals living with the diagnosed condition; government and nongovernmental resources for mitigating the condition; and options for adoption.
Burch claimed that the informed consent requirement was a means to “shame, coerce, and frighten” her.
The senator also relayed her experience with a previous pregnancy that ended in a miscarriage. Burch claimed that she was unable to obtain treatment to remove her deceased embryo because her condition wasn’t deemed “critical enough.” Per state law, abortion doesn’t include the termination of an ectopic pregnancy or removal of a dead fetus. This is a definition supported and reiterated by Attorney General Kris Mayes.
“[I]f you have a miscarriage and the doctor performs a surgical procedure to remove the deceased fetus, that is not an abortion,” states a webpage on abortion by Mayes.
Failure to remove a dead fetus from the uterus in a timely manner can cause deadly complications, such as disseminated intravascular coagulation. Denial of such lifesaving care would be considered medical malpractice.
Even so, Burch claimed lawmakers were to blame for her physical and emotional duress.
“The clauses for emergencies aren’t good enough. These laws can serve to intimidate doctors and it muddies the waters when they’re trying to make complex decisions in situations that are really volatile,” said Burch.
Arizona prohibits abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, and outright bans abortions sought for reasons of fetal genetic abnormality, race, or sex.
Burch said it was “inappropriate” for women seeking an abortion to have to undergo the transvaginal ultrasound.
Burch didn’t go into the details of her unborn child’s nonviability. Though uncommon, misdiagnosis of nonviability early on in pregnancy does occur for various reasons, such as an inaccurate conception date causing an inability to detect a fetal heartbeat. These misdiagnoses are usually caught with a followup ultrasound.
Burch also claimed that abortion carries a lower risk than pregnancy. The senator also cited datasets determining that women who can’t receive an abortion were more likely to be domestic violence victims, facing eviction and bankruptcy, bearing children with developmental delays, and poor.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
WalletHub compared the 50 states across three metrics: return on taxes paid to the federal government, federal funding as a share of state revenue, and share of federal jobs.
While Arizona’s overall rank was tenth, the Grand Canyon state ranked 15th for return on taxes paid to the federal government, fifth for federal funding as a share of state revenue, and 23rd for share of federal jobs.
President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club Scot Mussi took issue with WalletHub’s methodology.
“WalletHub doesn’t do a great job outlining their methodology, but from what I can gather they are basing ‘dependency’ on federal payouts, regardless of the purpose of the funds,” Mussi said. “For example, states with more military bases are likely punished as being more ‘dependent’ on federal funds. So to rectify the dependency problem should we equally spread out military bases among all 50 states so that every state receives equal funding? That makes no sense.”
Mussi said he wonders if Arizona has a higher dependency score due to the number of retirees from states like Illinois and California.
“Because people choose to come to Arizona, does that mean we are a “dependency” state?” Mussi asked. “Again, not a great metric to measure dependency.”
Blue states were found to be less financially dependent than red states.
“Regardless of whether the distribution of federal funds is fair or not, living in one of the most federally dependent states can be beneficial for residents,” WalletHub Analyst Cassandra Happe said in a news release. “For every dollar residents of the top states pay in taxes, they get several dollars back in federal funding, which often leads to higher-quality infrastructure, education, public health and more.”
Alaska was found to be the most federally financially dependent state, followed by New Mexico, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Mississippi. New Jersey ranked as the least dependent.
“Alaska is the most federally dependent state, with over 57% of the state’s revenue coming from federal funding,” Happe said. “For every $1 that residents pay in taxes, the state receives $2.47 in federal funding. Plus, nearly 5% of Alaska’s workforce is employed by the federal government, one of the highest rates in the country.”
Vanderbilt professor Carolyn J. Heinrich said federal resources often support programs that increase societal benefits and reduce societal costs.
“For example, Title I funds in education are distributed according to the level of family economic disadvantage, recognizing that it is important to ensure that all children are healthy and well-educated,” she said. “State resources may be prioritized for uses that yield benefits primarily within the state, such as economic development incentives.”
Mussi said he does think there are examples of states benefiting from their congressmen bringing home federal money for special interest and pork projects.
“Senators from West Virginia have been notorious for this activity, and it should be opposed,” he said. “But metrics like state dependency don’t ever seem to accurately reflect this type of activity, so we usually never rely on them.”
Elizabeth Troutman is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send her news tips using this link.
Arizona Democratic congressional candidate Kirsten Engel implied that Trump’s recent use of the common “bloodbath” metaphor was a call to violence.
The congressional candidate didn’t come to the conclusion on her own. Engel played off viral claims made in the media by the Biden-Harris campaign and top Democrats. She used the media storm on the former president as an opportunity to condemn her opponent, incumbent Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ-06), for not rebuking Trump’s rhetoric. Ciscomani endorsed Trump earlier this month.
“Just one week after my opponent endorsed him, President Trump warns of a ‘bloodbath’ if he’s not elected in Nov,” said Engel. “Predictably my opponent remains silent. Time and again he’s demonstrated an unwillingness to stand up to extremism. #AZ06 deserves better.”
Just one week after my opponent endorsed him, President Trump warns of a "bloodbath" if he's not elected in Nov. Predictably my opponent remains silent. Time and again he's demonstrated an unwillingness to stand up to extremism. #AZ06 deserves better. https://t.co/0TJaFiA7FL
Democrats and legacy media claimed that Trump mentioned a “bloodbath” in a political rally Saturday night as a promise of violence should he lose the election, many comparing the rhetoric to the 2021 Capitol breach. However, the former president was warning that his loss in the upcoming presidential race would result in a “bloodbath” for the country’s auto industry, as well as the entire economy.
“Those big monster car manufacturing plants that you’re building in Mexico right now, and you think you’re gonna get that, you’re gonna not hire Americans and you’re gonna sell the cars to us. No, we’re going to put a 100 percent tariff on every single car that comes across the line. And you’re not gonna be able to sell those cars; if I get elected. Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s gonna be a bloodbath for the whole – that’s gonna be the least of it, it’s gonna be a bloodbath for the country. That’ll be the least of it. But they’re not going to sell those cars; they’re building massive factories.”
The “bloodbath” metaphor is a popular one employed often by politicians, and even the same outlets that have now criticized Trump for its usage.
The Biden-Harris campaign also accused Trump of eliciting violence. James Singer, the campaign’s spokesman, passed on a statement to numerous outlets from a press release claiming that Trump was trying to start another January 6 incident.
“This is who Donald Trump is: a loser who gets beat by over 7 million votes and then instead of appealing to a wider mainstream audience doubles down on his threats of political violence,” said Singer. “He wants another January 6, but the American people are going to give him another electoral defeat this November because they continue to reject his extremism, his affection for violence, and his thirst for revenge.”
Biden-Harris campaign statement on Trump tonight promising a “bloodbath” if he loses pic.twitter.com/8mBYh4QKnf
The campaign’s communications director, Michael Tyler, also put out the accusation in an interview with former White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki.
Biden-Harris Communications Director Michael Tyler: Trump is promising a ‘bloodbath’ if he loses. The same guy who said there were ‘very fine people’ in Charlottesville, told the Proud Boys to stand back and stand by, and champions insurrectionists. This is who Trump is pic.twitter.com/RKvG1BEOdT
