This week, the Department of Justice (DOJ) asked the Supreme Court to uphold Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship requirements for voting.
The DOJ filed a brief in Republican National Committee, et al. v. Mi Familia Vota, et al. (case Nos. 25-1017, 25-1019, and 25-1022).
The case will determine whether the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) prohibits states from: removing noncitizens from voter rolls within 90 days of an election, requiring individuals to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections using the state registration form, and denying individuals the ability to vote by mail if they don’t provide documentary proof of citizenship.
These questions emerged from House Bills 2243 and 2492; both passed in 2022. Together, these bills require the secretary of state and county recorders to regularly review voter rolls, mandate registrants using the state registration form provide proof of citizenship, and prohibit vote by mail for federal-only voters.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the NVRA does preempt that legislation, impacting any similar citizenship proof measures taken by other states concerning their voting laws.
The federal court ruled the provisions in the Arizona laws amounted to unlawful voter suppression and were therefore unconstitutional. The court determined that voters must be allowed to vote federal ballots at least, even when they fail to provide proof of citizenship.
The respondents in the present litigation — Mi Familia Vota, Voto Latino, Arizona Asian American Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander for Equity Coalition, Democratic National Committee, and the Arizona Democratic Party — want to preempt Arizona and other states from imposing proof-of-citizenship limitations on voting.
Jesus Osete, principal deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights, said in the DOJ announcement that the NVRA doesn’t prohibit states from removing noncitizens from voter rolls.
In its filing, the DOJ argued the lower court’s ruling conflicted with the NVRA since it would effectively render state forms into mere replicas of the federal form. States would lack the flexibility afforded by the NVRA, said the DOJ.
The DOJ filing argued that proof-of-citizenship requirements were harmonious with NVRA requirements to increase the number of eligible citizens registered to vote and ensure the maintenance of accurate and current voter rolls.
“When noncitizens with no right to shape American government vote in American elections, the ballot box no longer speaks for the People, because its tally no longer reflects their voice,” argued the DOJ.
Senate President Warren Petersen (R-LD14) said he was “thrilled” by the Trump administration’s intervention.
“Only U.S. citizens should vote in our elections,” said Petersen. “Excited for SCOTUS to take up this important case.”
Thrilled the Trump DOJ is backing Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship requirements! Only U.S. citizens should vote in our elections. Excited for SCOTUS to take up this important case. https://t.co/xWBiciTxjV
The Supreme Court has already overruled the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on one of the issues in 2024. The Supreme Court allowed Arizona to enforce its proof-of-citizenship requirement for state voter registration forms, but refused to allow enforcement of the requirement for those registering with federal forms.
That follows the precedent set in 2013, when the Supreme Court ruled that the NVRA prohibited Arizona from requiring proof of citizenship of those voters registering to vote with the federal voter registration form.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen has filed a new legal brief in the case of Doe v. Sheridan, urging the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold Arizona’s sex offender registration and monitoring laws, which are designed to protect children and families across the state.
The filing comes after a significant victory at the trial court level, where a federal judge rejected constitutional challenges and upheld Arizona’s lifetime registration and reporting requirements for convicted sex offenders.
The plaintiff, a convicted sex offender who pleaded guilty to crimes involving a minor and accepted lifetime probation and registration as part of the plea agreement, is now appealing the decision in an effort to weaken the state’s ability to track and monitor potential threats.
At issue is Arizona’s requirement that convicted sex offenders provide law enforcement with updated information, including online identifiers used on social media and other internet platforms. These provisions enable authorities to investigate crimes more effectively, deter repeat offenses, and safeguard communities from future harm.
“We already prevailed in federal court because Arizona’s law is constitutional and serves a clear public safety purpose,” stated Petersen. “These requirements give law enforcement the ability to track convicted offenders, investigate crimes, and prevent future harm. Weakening those safeguards does not make anyone safer; it only makes it easier for offenders to operate without oversight.”
When Attorney General Kris Mayes declined to defend the law in court, the Arizona Legislature intervened to protect these critical public safety measures. The trial court ultimately ruled in favor of the state, affirming that the registration requirements are constitutional and serve a vital public safety purpose.
“It is deeply concerning that Arizona’s Attorney General has chosen not to defend this law,” added Petersen. “When the state refuses to stand behind its own laws, especially those designed to protect children, the Legislature has a duty to act. We will continue defending these protections to ensure Arizona families are not left exposed.”
The Ninth Circuit will now review the case and decide whether to affirm the lower court’s ruling, preserving Arizona’s sex offender monitoring laws.
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Arizona has been working to stop noncitizens from voting in our elections for over 20 years. After years of litigation, we are near the final step in proving our model works. That’s why last month we filed a brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the 9th Circuit’s radical decision blocking our proof of citizenship laws from going into effect, and it should be an easy decision for them.
The Supreme Court told us in 2013 that we could require proof of citizenship on our own state voter registration form. They said it again in 2024, just weeks before the election. And yet, the 9th Circuit, in defiance of the Supreme Court, determined that essentially every aspect of the laws is unconstitutional, and that they were passed with “discriminatory intent.”
While we continue to wait on Congress to pass the SAVE Act, Arizona’s model is one every state can and must adopt immediately. When the Supreme Court takes the case, every obstacle will be removed for them…
The Scottsdale Police Department (SPD) says they won’t be posting the mugshots of recently arrested child sex traffickers under the claim that Arizona law prohibits the posting of mugshots.
“It is currently against the law in Arizona to post mugshots and names on social media related to arrests,” said SPD.
However, it’s not Arizona law that prohibits the posting of mugshots. SPD based their claim on the 2024 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Houston v. Maricopa. The agency involved in that ruling, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO), modified their mugshot posting practice in order to comply with that ruling.
It is currently against the law in AZ to post mugshots and names on social media related to arrests. There are exceptions for emergency community notifications, such as wanted armed and dangerous suspects. Most of the cases from our anti-trafficking are DECOY BASED. Meaning an…
SPD issued the statement in response to criticisms that they failed to post the mugshots identifying around 200 individuals arrested in a weeks-long sex trafficking sting by SPD’s Human Exploitation and Trafficking Unit from the end of January through mid-February.
Charges included child sex trafficking, attempted sexual conduct with a minor, luring a minor for sexual exploitation, prostitution and pandering, and weapons misconduct. Some of those individuals arrested had outstanding felony warrants.
MCSO resumed their posting of mugshots in a manner they claim achieves compliance with the court ruling last August.
— Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (@MCSOAZ) August 21, 2025
An MCSO spokesperson, William Jinks, indicated at the time that the court ruling didn’t make it “illegal” to post mugshots. Rather, the judgment established guidelines for posting.
“The changes made to the mug shot page are in accordance with the opinion of the appellate court,” said Jinks.
The 2024 ruling found specifically that MCSO’s policy of posting mugshots was unconstitutional — not the entire practice of posting mugshots.
The court took issue with MCSO’s policy of posting personally identifying information with the mugshot (birth date, sex, height, weight, hair color, eye color, and arresting charges), removing the online posting after three days, and failing to identify the arresting agency.
Ninth Circuit Judge Marsha Berzon ruled that governmental transparency wasn’t a valid justification for MCSO’s mugshot posting policy.
“Governmental actions that harmfully affect arrestees pretrial can violate due process if impermissibly punitive, whether a condition of pretrial detention or not,” stated Berzon. “What is the public interest, for example, in publicly disclosing [the arrestee’s] weight? So, too, with other personal information including his birthdate, height, eye color, and hair color. The County nowhere purports to show, much less succeeds in showing, why this level of granular detail about [the arrestee’s] body and personal identity rationally furthers an interest in government transparency.”
MCSO adapted its policy to resolve those contentions by the court. The new mugshots page lists far less information: booking number, first and last name, and charges. Mugshots also have watermarks identifying MCSO as the arresting agency. The page also has a disclaimer posted at the top: “All individuals are innocent until proven guilty.” The page only includes the 100 most recent mugshots.
Houston v. Maricopa is currently under civil appeal within the Arizona District One Court of Appeals. The latest development in that case was the court’s approval last month for oral arguments.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Arizona state lawmakers requested the U.S. Supreme Court to take up an appeal on the state’s proof of citizenship for voter registration.
Last February, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down two laws which established proof of citizenship requirements. That court declared Arizona’s laws attempting to add more requirements on voter registrations were preempted by the simpler registration requirements of federal voting rights laws under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and were therefore invalid.
Those laws, passed in 2022 under then-Gov. Doug Ducey, restricted mail-in voting for registrants lacking citizenship verification in addition to requiring recorders to check federal citizenship databases and applicants to provide documentary proof of citizenship and residence. These pieces of legislation emerged following the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision against an Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections.
Several years later, in 2018, the state entered into a consent decree requiring county recorders to search Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) records for state registration forms lacking proof of citizenship. Those applications without verifiable citizenship proof through ADOT would only be allowed to cast ballots in the federal election, otherwise known as “federal-only voters.”
A number of progressive activist organizations joined in a lawsuit to challenge these laws: Mi Familia Vota, Voto Latino, Living United for Change in Arizona, League of United Latin American Citizens, Arizona Students Association, ADRC Action, Arizona Coalition for Change, Poder Latinx, Chicanos Por La Causa and their affiliated action fund, Democratic National Committee, Arizona Democratic Party, Arizona Asian American Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander for Equity Coalition, Promise Arizona, and the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project.
The Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona, San Carlos Apache Tribe, Tohono O’odham Nation, and Gila River Indian Community also were among the challengers to proof of citizenship laws, citing concerns with challenges tribal members face to obtain proof of residency. Several tribal members were named independently in the lawsuit: Keanu Stevens, Alanna Siqueiros, and LaDonna Jacket.
The leaders of the Republican-led Arizona legislature filed their petition with the Supreme Court this week.
Sen. President Warren Petersen (R-LD4) issued a press release announcing the Supreme Court petition in which he accused the Ninth Circuit judges of having “rewrote” federal law and ignored Supreme Court precedent.
“For more than two decades, Arizona has required proof of citizenship to register to vote, because only American citizens should decide American elections,” said Petersen. “This case is about whether states still have the power to enforce commonsense safeguards to ensure only eligible voters participate in our elections. Arizona is standing up not just for our state, but for every state’s constitutional authority to secure its own elections.”
The filing argues that the Ninth Circuit ruling against Arizona law stretches federal voting law far beyond its allowable interpretation.
“This case, which comes to the Court on a non-expedited basis and underpinned by a comprehensive evidentiary record, offers an ideal vehicle for clarifying the NVRA’s preemptive scope, affirming that federal consent decrees cannot perpetually paralyze state legislative bodies, and vindicating the presumption of legislative good faith,” read the filing.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
