by Staff Reporter | May 2, 2026 | News
By Staff Reporter |
A federal judge dismissed the Trump administration’s lawsuit against Secretary of State Adrian Fontes over his refusal to turn over voter registration records.
The Arizona District Court ruled in United States v. Fontes on Tuesday that the federal government didn’t have justification under federal law to force Fontes to turn over the records.
The court dismissed the claim with prejudice, calling the federal government’s claim on the law “[an] amendment [that] would be legally futile.”
District Judge Susan Brnovich, widow to former Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, found “unconvincing” the DOJ’s argument that the Civil Rights Act of 1960 (52 U.S.C. § 20702) gave the federal government authority to request state voter records and documents. Brnovich said this interpretation conflicted with the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and Help America Vote Act (HAVA).
“[T]he Attorney General’s interpretation places § 20702 in conflict with multiple provisions of the NVRA and HAVA,” said Brnovich.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed the lawsuit against Fontes in January. Then-Attorney General Pam Bondi sought Arizona’s entire statewide voter registration list, which would include a registered voter’s full name, date of birth, residential address, and driver’s license number or last four Social Security Number digits.
At the time, Bondi said voter registration database transparency between the states and federal government fulfilled a “basic obligation of transparency.”
Fontes said the court ruling represented a victory for preserving the security of voter privacy.
“Looks like your personal data is safe yet again because the case against me and the Department of Justice’s illegal requests to grab that voter registration have been dismissed,” said Fontes. “I will continue to protect your personal identifying information from these illegal requests no matter what.”
The DOJ requested records from Fontes twice last summer and once last winter. Fontes denied all requests. He has maintained that state and federal privacy laws preempt him from turning over voter records.
Attorney General Kris Mayes supported Fontes’ refusal from the start.
In a statement released on Wednesday, Mayes said the ruling was a rightful dismissal and a vindication of Fontes’ actions.
“That database contains the sensitive personal information of millions of Arizona voters — home addresses, dates of birth, and Social Security and driver’s license numbers. But the Court was clear: Title III of the Civil Rights Act does not authorize this demand,” said Mayes.
Five other federal courts in California, Oregon, Michigan, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island have rejected this Civil Rights Act argument by the Trump DOJ.
The DOJ has 25 lawsuits on their claim of Civil Rights Act authority pending in Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Earlier this month, Arizona Senate leadership referred Fontes to the DOJ for allegedly obstructing justice and tampering with a witness concerning a federal probe into Arizona election records.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Jan 27, 2026 | News
By Staff Reporter |
Rep. Adelita Grijalva praised the invasion of a church service by anti-ICE protesters.
The protesters targeted the Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, during a Sunday worship service after they learned one of the pastors, David Easterwood, was ICE’s acting field office director in Minnesota. Easterwood was not present for that service.
During the invasion of the church, Nekima Levy Armstrong claimed Christians couldn’t support immigration enforcement efforts. Armstrong’s activist group, Racial Justice Network, organized the protest.
“Someone who claims to worship God teaching people in this church about God is out there overseeing ICE agents,” said Armstrong.
Church leaders were witnessed on camera asking the protesters to leave, but the protesters refused.
Federal authorities arrested three of the activists for allegedly orchestrating the church invasion: Armstrong, Chauntyll Louisa Allen, and William Kelly. Their charges alleged violations of the FACE Act.
The Freedom to Access Clinic Entrances Act of 1994 (FACE Act) criminalizes the intimidation or interference of those seeking to exercise their First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem dubbed the invasion the “Church Riots.”
“Religious freedom is the bedrock of the United States – there is no first amendment right to obstruct someone from practicing their religion,” said Noem.
Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that the Trump administration won’t tolerate disruptions of Christians’ freedom to worship.
“Attacks against law enforcement and the intimidation of Christians are being met with the full force of federal law,” said Bondi.
Grijalva defended the church invasion. She told CNN that ICE agents deserved to be harassed. Grijalva claimed illegal immigrants undergoing deportation proceedings were being “kidnapped” and implied they had a right to be in this country.
“[T]his federal agent now knows what it’s like to have his daily life and privacy interrupted. This is a daily occurrence for our immigrant communities – being followed and kidnapped outside of schools, churches, and hospitals,” said Grijalva. “The difference is this agent got to go home at the end of the day, where many families have no idea where their loved ones are when they’ve been kidnaped off the streets.”
Grijalva also claimed ICE had deported U.S. citizens as well as veterans.
ICE has deported minors born in the U.S. to illegal immigrant parents.
DHS advised that they allow the parents to either be removed with their children, or have their children placed with another individual: this choice is left up to the parents. DHS under Trump has consistently maintained that policy.
Deportations of veterans occur in cases where those noncitizens have committed certain crimes (per the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996) or failed to follow through with the required citizenship proceedings.
Grijalva also praised the high school students who played hooky to protest deportations, characterizing the present immigration enforcement as an “overreach.”
Last month, the congresswoman claimed she was shoved and pepper sprayed by ICE agents at a protest without provocation. DHS responded with an accusation that Grijalva joined an anti-ICE mob attempting to obstruct an immigration raid. DHS later stated that two law enforcement officers were “seriously injured” by the mob that Grijalva joined.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Jan 8, 2026 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The Department of Justice (DOJ) sued Arizona for refusing to turn over voter registration records.
Arizona joins 22 other states and the District of Columbia facing legal action from the DOJ for withholding access to the voter rolls.
A press release issued on Tuesday from the DOJ also named Connecticut as the latest to be sued.
“Accurate voter rolls are the foundation of election integrity, and any state that fails to meet this basic obligation of transparency can expect to see us in court,” said Attorney General Pam Bondi.
The requested records would include each voter’s full name, date of birth, residential address, and either their state driver’s license number, last four digits of their Social Security number, or HAVA unique identifier.
The DOJ’s lawsuit asserts the agency maintains legal authority under the Civil Rights Act (CRA) to access any election records it desires.
“If the custodian to whom the written demand is made refuses to comply, the CRA requires ‘a special statutory proceeding in which the courts play a limited, albeit vital, role’ in assisting the Attorney General’s investigative powers,” stated the lawsuit.
The DOJ requested the records from Secretary of State Adrian Fontes last July, and again in August. Both times Fontes responded with refusals, claiming that state and federal privacy laws prevent him from turning over the requested records.
Fontes rejected another follow-up request by the DOJ last month. The secretary of state claimed that voter rights to privacy trumped the federal government’s chief authority over elections.
“Arizona voters also have important privacy rights that cannot be infringed because they choose to exercise their constitutionally protected voting rights,” said Fontes.
Fontes said in a statement to Democracy Docket that he would rather be imprisoned than cooperate with the Trump administration.
“They’re going to have to put me in jail if they want this information,” said Fontes.
In a video statement on X, Fontes again declared compliance would break state and federal law.
“Pound sand,” said Fontes.
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes backed Fontes’ take on privacy laws negating the authority of election oversight laws.
“Both state and federal law prohibit the unrestricted release of Arizona’s complete voter registration database to the DOJ,” said Mayes.
Fontes also published a blog post on Tuesday commemorating the fifth year to pass since the January 6 invasion of the Capitol. The secretary of state claimed that the government remains under active threat, and compared the political climate to the Civil War era.
“Today’s challenges — polarization, misinformation from the top down, foreign interference — are real and daunting. But they pale in comparison to the existential crisis of 1864, when the nation itself was at risk of dissolution. If democracy could survive that, it can survive now — provided we do our part,” said Fontes. “Confidence in our electoral system is not naïve; it is necessary. Election officials across the country are working tirelessly to secure voting infrastructure, expand access, and ensure transparency. These efforts deserve not only our trust but our active participation. Cynicism is easy. Engagement is harder — but it is the only way forward.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Jan 4, 2026 | News
By Staff Reporter |
Corporate media is making the case that the state’s largest sheriff’s office still needs federal oversight for racial profiling.
ABC 15 aired a segment criticizing a court filing requesting an end to the decade-long federal oversight of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO). The oversight emerged from the Melendres v. Arpaio case, a class action complaint against allegedly racially motivated detentions that occurred during illegal migrant sweeps.
FOIAzona caught reporting errors made within a report by ABC 15 that no longer appears to be published, including the claim that MCSO filed the court motion.
However, it was the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) who submitted that court filing earlier this month. MCBOS has budgetary power over MCSO.
In their court filing, MCBOS made the case that MCSO had long ago achieved 100 percent compliance in remedying issues of racially motivated detentions. The county argued that further federal oversight would only divert critical funds for public safety.
In a video explaining the filing, MCBOS Chairman Thomas Galvin said the end to federal oversight was long overdue.
“After 14 years, four sheriffs, and hundreds of millions of spent tax dollars, it is essential to defend taxpayer money if federal oversight is no longer warranted,” said Galvin. “All that’s left to enforce are matters unrelated to discriminatory policing which should be left to the sheriff who was elected by you: the Maricopa County residents.”
The 14 years of oversight have cost the county over $300 million in compliance. Around ten percent of those payments went to the court monitor, Robert Warshaw.
Leading up to MCBOS filing were months of allegations that Warshaw has a financial incentive to continue federal oversight of MCSO. Warshaw has earned over $30 million in monitor fees since taking on oversight of MCSO in January 2014 — around $3 million annually.
Warshaw faces similar accusations of exploiting federal oversight orders for personal gain in connection to his 15-plus years of monitoring the Oakland Police Department in California. There he earns over $1 million annually.
Warshaw has also earned millions from federal monitor assignments in New York, Michigan, and Louisiana.
Warshaw formerly served as the deputy drug czar for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy under former President Bill Clinton.
Almost a decade ago, Judicial Watch reported on allegations that Warshaw allegedly employed “harsh” tactics that distracted from the county’s law enforcement activities.
Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell said Warshaw’s presence is no longer warranted.
“There is no defense for this ‘federal monitor,’” said Mitchell. “One more reason I like to get my news from the non-fiction section.”
Mitchell has been a vocal critic of Warshaw’s continued presence.
“It’s time we stop talking about Joe Arpaio — he is long gone and has been replaced by 3 different sheriffs from both political parties — and start talking about why the federal monitor, Robert Warshaw, is dragging this on and on,” said Mitchell in a May post. “Maricopa taxpayers should be outraged that we are at $350 million. Warshaw has no incentive to wrap this up.”
Back in October, Congressman Andy Biggs also asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to lift MCSO’s federal oversight. Supervisors Mark Stewart and Debbie Lesko, along with Mitchell, offered their support for the letter.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Ethan Faverino | Nov 16, 2025 | News
By Ethan Faverino |
U.S. Congressman Abe Hamadeh (AZ-08) urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to launch a federal investigation into allegations of bribery and prosecutorial misconduct tied to the Democrat Attorneys General Association (DAGA), the States United Democracy Center (SUDC), and multiple state attorneys general offices.
The congressman, a former prosecutor, highlighted the direct impact on his Arizona constituents—grandmothers, business leaders, veterans, seniors, and activists—who he says have been targeted for exercising their First Amendment rights in what appears to be politically motivated prosecutions.
Court filings in State of Arizona v. Kelli Ward et al. uncovered an apparent coordinated scheme where partisan nonprofits allegedly funneled payments to influence criminal cases.
Key allegations outlined in Hamadeh’s letter to AG Bondi include:
Suspicious Financial Timing: Arizona AG Kris Mayes received $200,000 from DAGA. She received $50,000 after hiring SUDC in May 2023, and $150,000 right after announcing indictments in April 2024, raising red flags of potential quid pro quo.
Unprecedented Control by Partisan Group: The Arizona AG’s office claims an attorney-client relationship with SUDC, effectively ceding prosecutorial authority to a politically aligned nonprofit, undermining independence and due process.
Opaque Organizational Ties: Tax records indicate that SUDC shares leadership, addresses, and bank accounts with the Progressive State Leadership Committee, a structure seemingly designed to mask money flow and coordination.
Hamadeh also pointed to SUDC co-founder Marc Elias’s prior sanctions by the Fifth Circuit for “redundant and misleading” conduct and lack of candor, including filing undisclosed duplicate motions, requiring him to complete court-ordered ethics training.
“My constituents, including veterans and seniors who make up a significant portion of AZ-08, deserve confidence that their taxpayer dollars ensure law enforcement decisions affecting their rights are made impartially, and are not going to partisan Democrat-affiliated organizations,” stated Congressman Hamadeh. “The apparently credible allegations rise to a level of seriousness that warrants an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice.”
In his letter to AG Pam Bondi, Hamadeh demanded answers within 30 days on:
- The status of any DOJ probe into DAGA-SUDC arrangements.
- Similar financial ties in other states with politically charged cases.
- Protections for defendants’ due process rights.
- Review of tax filings, bank records, and communications.
- Timeline for investigation and public findings.
“The allegations outlined above, if substantiated, represent a fundamental corruption of prosecutorial independence and the rule of law,” concluded Hamadeh. “My constituents and all Americans deserve to know that criminal prosecutions are conducted based on evidence and law, not influenced by financial payments from partisan political organizations.”
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
