Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ5) has introduced legislation that would establish a federal pathway for patients with life-threatening or severely debilitating diseases to access individualized investigational treatments when no approved treatment options remain.
According to a press release from Biggs’ office, the Right to Try for Individualized Treatments Act was introduced this week by Biggs and Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-TN), with companion legislation introduced in the U.S. Senate by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI).
The legislation builds on the original federal Right to Try Act, which was signed into law by President Donald Trump and provides terminally ill patients access to certain investigational treatments that had not yet received full approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
“One of my first efforts upon taking office in January 2017 was to partner with Senator Ron Johnson to champion Right to Try, which we passed through both the U.S. House and Senate,” Biggs said. “Many of us know people who are terminally ill and desperately seeking to extend their lives. Right to Try gives these individuals hope, freedom, and power to try potentially life-saving drug therapies.”
Biggs said supporters of the original legislation sought to provide patients with additional treatment options when facing terminal illnesses and that the new proposal would build upon that framework.
“Our coalition was unwilling to let one more American die without this chance, and we are motivated to build on this original bill with the Right to Try for Individualized Treatments Act,” Biggs said. “I am honored to again help lead this bill in the U.S. House, and I pray we can quickly send it to President Trump’s desk to be enacted into law.”
According to the bill sponsors, the legislation is intended to address advances in precision medicine and genomics that have enabled treatments tailored to individual patients. The lawmakers argue that existing regulatory pathways were designed for therapies intended for broader patient populations and do not adequately accommodate patient-specific treatments.
“We are entering a new era of medicine where breakthroughs in genomics and precision therapies can create treatments designed specifically for an individual patient, but our regulatory system was built for a different time and simply hasn’t kept up,” Harshbarger said. “This legislation makes sure patients have a clear, durable path to pursue individualized treatments when all other options have failed.”
Under the proposal, patients diagnosed with life-threatening or severely debilitating diseases could access investigational individualized therapies under physician supervision when no approved treatment options remain. Patients would need a physician’s recommendation before receiving treatment, which would be administered in qualified healthcare facilities that meet federal safety and quality standards and are subject to Institutional Review Board oversight and informed consent requirements.
Johnson said the measure would expand upon the original Right to Try framework by addressing therapies developed for individual patients and rare diseases.
“Right to Try 2.0 builds on that success and would provide access to individualized, rare disease and one-patient therapies that the current regulatory environment has yet to accommodate,” Johnson said. “This is about medical freedom and putting doctors and patients at the top of the treatment pyramid.”
The legislation would also establish a statutory framework for individualized treatments rather than relying solely on administrative guidance. According to Biggs’ office, the FDA released draft guidance in February outlining a framework to support the development of individualized therapies, but the sponsors argue congressional action is needed to create durable patient protections and access pathways.
The Goldwater Institute, which helped pioneer the original Right to Try movement that was enacted into federal law in 2018, also advocated for the introduction of the Right to Try for Individualized Treatments Act.
In a statement, Goldwater Institute President and CEO Victor Riches said, “No American should be forced to beg the government for permission to try to save their own life, and no bureaucrat should prevent a patient from accessing cutting-edge therapies. The Right to Try for Individualized Treatments opens the door to the latest advances in medical treatment and brings the federal government into the 21st century.”
While medical technology has evolved at a breathtaking pace, regulatory systems remain stuck in an era of mass-produced drugs.
The Right to Try for Individualized Treatments Act will ensure that our laws keep pace with modern innovation, removing the bureaucratic barriers that…
— Goldwater Institute (@GoldwaterInst) June 9, 2026
The proposal also has roots in Arizona. According to the release, Right to Try legislation received nearly 80 percent support in the Arizona Legislature in 2014 during Biggs’ tenure as a state lawmaker. The release states that Right to Try policies have since been adopted in 41 states, while “Right to Try 2.0” laws addressing individualized treatments have been enacted in 17 states, including Arizona.
The Arizona Supreme Court has agreed to take on a case determining whether Arizona State University (ASU) can mandate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) trainings for its employees.
Professor Owen Anderson sued the Arizona Board of Regents in 2024 after ASU required him to take a DEI training called “Inclusive Communities” (ASU referred to their version of DEI as “DEIB,” or “diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging”).
ASU requires the Inclusive Communities training as a condition of employment upon hire and every two years.
The Goldwater Institute, a Phoenix-based public policy and litigation organization, filed on Anderson’s behalf. Goldwater Institute attorney Stacy Skankey said the case represented Arizonans’ right to hold government agencies accountable for violating the law.
Arizona law prohibits any mandatory trainings which impart “blame or judgment on the basis of race, ethnicity or sex.”
“No one should be forced to participate in divisive DEI training or endorse race-based ideology as a condition for holding a government job,” said Skankey. “That’s exactly why Arizona lawmakers banned mandatory trainings that teach discriminatory ideas about race, ethnicity, or sex. But a law without enforcement is no law at all.”
The Inclusive Communities training included materials which taught that white supremacy exists as a structural phenomenon, minority faculty don’t have authority or control due to structural inequalities like racism and sexism, white privilege and white fragility exist and impact communities, white people have a duty to combat their privilege, racism can be implicit even if not intended, and sexual identities yield power.
Transcript examples from the training materials were included in the Goldwater Institute’s filing within the Arizona Supreme Court.
Along with the training, ASU formerly required employees to pass an accompanying module quiz. This exam graded certain answers as correct which served to advance DEIB ideology; the Goldwater Institute argued this final test further proved the training served as an impermissible mandate for employees to accept blame or judgment on the basis of race, ethnicity, and sex.
Anderson said ASU’s mandate violated state law because the training assigned “race blame” based on skin color.
Anderson added that ASU’s training was rooted in a Marxist dichotomy reducing the world to oppressor versus oppressed, and that the training imparted impermissibly discriminatory teachings that conflicted with his religious and political beliefs. Anderson is a tenured faculty member who teaches philosophy and religious studies.
“Arizona State leaders broke the law when they forced me and every other employee to take part in an ideological training that taught that it’s okay to judge people on their race, ethnicity, religion, and sex. I simply refuse to do that,” said Anderson. “Ultimately, the question before the Arizona Supreme Court isn’t a left or right issue — it’s about whether a state employee has the right to hold their employer accountable when it violates the law.”
The Arizona Court of Appeals previously rejected Anderson’s lawsuit. The court ruled that the law doesn’t have a provision allowing individuals like Anderson to seek legal recourse.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
The Goldwater Institute filed a lawsuit against the City of Phoenix seeking to block a proposed sale of downtown city-owned land to Pennrose, LLC. The lawsuit alleges the deal violates the Arizona Constitution’s Gift Clause and a state law governing municipal housing requirements.
The complaint, filed May 26 in Maricopa County Superior Court, challenges the city’s proposed sale of public land located at 1016 North 2nd Street for approximately $1.5 million. The lawsuit alleges the sale price is less than one-third of the property’s fair market value and would benefit a private developer in violation of Article 9, Section 7 of the Arizona Constitution.
According to the complaint, Pennrose proposed what the lawsuit describes as “a blend of LGBTQ+ affirming affordable housing and a tuition-free preschool for under-resourced children,” with the preschool component to be offered by Bezos Academy. The Bezos Academy is a nonprofit organization founded by Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon.com and owner of The Washington Post.
Court filings describe the property as consisting of three parcels totaling approximately 0.4 acres, or about 17,500 square feet. Goldwater attorneys allege the property was appraised at the direction of the city at approximately $4,812,500 in June 2023.
The Arizona Constitution requires government entities to receive a direct and proportionate return when they sell public assets. But Phoenix leaders are attempting to give Pennrose, LLC a massive discount on prime downtown real estate, agreeing to sell property worth at least…
— Goldwater Institute (@GoldwaterInst) June 1, 2026
The complaint states the city issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) in November 2023 seeking proposals for the purchase and development of the property. According to the lawsuit, the RFP set the minimum purchase price at $4,812,500, the property’s appraised value, while allowing proposers to offer a combination of cash payment and other purported public benefits to meet or exceed that amount.
Pennrose submitted a proposal in January 2024 to acquire and develop the property, according to the complaint. Goldwater attorneys allege the developer proposed purchasing the land for approximately $1.5 million and acknowledged, according to the complaint, that the proposed purchase price represented more than a $3.3 million discount below the RFP’s minimum purchase price.
City records show the Phoenix City Council approved Ordinance S-51809 on April 9, 2025, authorizing the sale and redevelopment agreement for the property, and later adopted Ordinance S-52672 on March 4, 2026, approving an amendment to the development agreement with Pennrose modifying the purchase price.
In a statement released June 1, Tony Napolitano, Senior Attorney at the Goldwater Institute, wrote, “Pennrose claims that the development will create public benefits worth more than the massive subsidy. But there’s a major problem: no valuable public benefit is identified, much less required, in the final agreement. In fact, the developer suggests the city should consider Pennrose’s own private gains from the project as public benefits. That theory turns the Arizona Constitution on its head.”
The lawsuit argues the proposed transaction would provide a subsidy to a private developer without the city receiving direct and proportionate consideration in return, as required under the Arizona Constitution’s Gift Clause.
Goldwater also alleges Phoenix imposed an unlawful inclusionary housing requirement on the sale and development of the property. The complaint argues the city violated A.R.S. § 9-461.16, which restricts municipalities from requiring residential units to be designated for sale or lease to particular classes of residents as a condition of development approval.
Napolitano explained, “Pennrose initially proposed building a mixed-use development on the site, which would include low-income housing and a tuition-free preschool provided by a nonprofit. While the inclusion of a private nonprofit would not remedy the Gift Clause deficiency, it’s not even relevant because it was not included in the final terms of the deal.”
“That leaves the sole remaining alleged public benefit Pennrose claims: the residual value of the housing project once the agreement expires,” he continued. “However, the city retains no ownership interest in the property, and taxpayers will never receive any of their money back from the developer. Those assets remain with the private special interest—exactly what the Gift Clause was designed to prevent.”
The lawsuit asks the court to declare that the proposed sale violates the Gift Clause, block the city from completing the transaction or conveying the property, declare the inclusionary housing requirement unlawful, and enjoin the city from enforcing such a requirement as a condition of development approval.
“Simply put, Arizona law does not give way just because city officials find a particular project desirable.
“Public property belongs to the public. When government officials transfer millions of dollars in public value to a private developer, the Arizona Constitution requires a genuine public purpose and a proportionate exchange—not deep discounts justified by speculative or illusory benefits that taxpayers will never see.”
AZ Free News did not locate a public response from the City of Phoenix regarding the lawsuit prior to publication.
Editor’s Note: Following publication, a representative for Bezos Academy contacted AZ Free News and said that Bezos Academy does not plan to open a location at the proposed Pennrose development in Phoenix.
Gov. Katie Hobbs’ overruled housing moratorium could leave taxpayers on the hook for more than $1 billion in compensation to builders.
The housing moratorium was a result of the Arizona Department of Water Resources’ (ADWR) indefinite suspension of developer certificates throughout the Valley based on new groundwater regulations imposed under Hobbs in 2024.
For decades, state law required developers to prove 100 years of assured water supply for their developments. Once Hobbs took office, ADWR imposed new regulations that expanded developers’ duty to prove assured water supply beyond their development into the surrounding water management area.
The Home Builders Association of Central Arizona (HBACA) sued ADWR over the regulations last January, represented by the Goldwater Institute. Last month, the Maricopa County Superior Court sided with HBACA and struck down the moratorium. Judge Scott Blaney found that ADWR violated Arizona law on the extent of its powers and on agency rulemaking.
ADWR plans to appeal the ruling.
A former ADWR director and one of the leading policymakers behind the legacy rule on assured water supply (the 1980 Groundwater Management Act) spoke out against the superior court ruling.
Kathleen Ferris, now an Arizona State University (ASU) senior research fellow with the Kyl Center for Water Policy, told KJZZ last month that ADWR was justified in its rulemaking because it had discovered that Phoenix-area groundwater was more interconnected than understood previously.
Whether that court ruling will stand on appeal or no, taxpayers will likely be on the hook for hundreds of millions — perhaps over a billion — in builder compensation claims filed under the Private Property Rights Protection Act, enacted under Proposition 207.
Prop 207 entitles property owners to just compensation for any land use laws’ impact on the use, division, sale, or possession of their property that reduces its fair market value.
One such Prop 207 claim is already underway.
Last September, developers Buckeye Tartesso and Buckeye Tartesso II filed a claim demanding over $320 million in compensation for lost value due to the ADWR rule. That figure, however, reflected only a low estimate which the developers felt they could accept as a settlement.
“[This figure] incorporates a number of conservative assumptions, and the [developers] expect that actual, proven damages would be significantly higher,” read the demand letter. “This demand is an offer of settlement, in the nature of a compromise, and the [developers] reserve the right to seek additional or different damages if litigation is necessary.”
ADWR prevented the developers from obtaining a certificate of assured water source for the Tartesso development in the city of Buckeye, which spanned over 12,800 acres. As a consequence, they were prohibited from subdividing or selling lots on that property.
The Goldwater Institute filed the claim on behalf of the developers.
Should all builders file similar claims, taxpayers could be on the hook for over $1 billion in compensation payments at a time when the state is already struggling with budget woes.
Gov. Hobbs inherited a budget surplus of over $2.5 billion from her predecessor, Republican governor Doug Ducey. After two years in office, the budget plunged to a $1.4 billion deficit: a near-180 on the state’s fiscal health.
The latest figures reflect a slightly better status, though still nowhere near in the black: a deficit of over $300 million, according to Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ-06).
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
The Goldwater Institute has called on Arizona’s largest school district to immediately repeal a policy that prohibits “personal attacks” on school board members, staff, students, or members of the public during public comment periods, arguing the rule unconstitutionally silences criticism while allowing praise.
In a formal letter sent to Mesa Public Schools Governing Board President Courtney Davis, the Goldwater Institute contends the policy constitutes blatant viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment and the Arizona Constitution.
The Mesa Public Schools Governing Board adopted this policy in July 2024, banning any “personal attacks” during the public comment portion of board meetings. According to the Goldwater Institute, the rule effectively permits speakers to praise or thank board members, administrators, and teachers by name, but forbids any negative, critical, or challenging comments directed at the same individual—no matter how factual or civil the critique may be.
“This prohibition punishes a specific viewpoint insofar as it prohibits ‘attacks,’” the letter states. “It is not, then, the speaking about Board members, staff, students, or members of the public in general that the Governing Board is preventing, but only speech about those groups from a certain viewpoint. That is unconstitutional.”
Adam Shelton, an attorney for the Goldwater Institute, who wrote the letter, told The Center Square, “The Supreme Court has consistently held that viewpoint discrimination is almost always unconstitutional.”
The Goldwater Institute became involved after concerned Mesa parents contacted the organization, requesting a review of the policy. Shelton noted that the board reads the restriction aloud before every public comment session.
“The policy has chilled the speech of some of the parents,” Shelton added. “They’re afraid to speak out and bring problems before the school board. These parents are concerned about being banned or punished for making negative comments about school board officials.”
Public comment periods at school board meetings serve as a vital democratic function, allowing parents and community members to bring forward issues, including complaints about teachers, policies, or administrative decisions. The Goldwater Institute argues that Mesa’s policy undermines this purpose by making it nearly impossible to discuss real problems without naming those responsible.
Federal courts have repeatedly struck down similar policies. In Ison v. Madison Local School District Board of Education, the Sixth Circuit invalidated a rule banning “antagonistic” or “abusive” speech personally directed at board members as impermissible viewpoint discrimination. More recently, in Moms for Liberty – Brevard County, FL v. Brevard Public Schools, the Eleventh Circuit ruled against a prohibition on “abusive” comments, noting that such policies effectively require “happy-talk”—allowing positive comments while suppressing negative or challenging ones.
The Eleventh Circuit emphasized that restricting “personally directed” speech obstructs the core purpose of school board meetings: educating officials and the community about legitimate concerns. The court observed that a parent complaining about a math teacher’s instructional methods would struggle to explain the issue without referencing the teacher.
The Goldwater Institute warned that maintaining the policy exposes the district to potentially costly litigation. Following its victory in the Brevard case, Moms for Liberty secured a settlement requiring the Florida school district to pay nearly $600,000 in attorney fees, costs, and expenses.
In addition to federal constitutional concerns, the letter highlights that the policy likely violates Article II, Section 6 of the Arizona Constitution, which provides even broader protections for free speech than the First Amendment.
The Goldwater Institute has requested that the Mesa Public Schools Governing Board promptly amend its policy by removing the prohibition on “personal attacks.” The organization expressed willingness to work cooperatively with the board to bring the rules into compliance with constitutional standards and noted that all options remain under consideration if the policy is not revised.
No response has been received from the Board President, Courtney Davis, or the governing board as of the time of publication.
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
