On Wednesday, U.S. Senators Mark Kelly and Kyrsten Sinema heaped praise on the Biden-Harris Administration for the nomination of Sharad Desai as a U.S. District Court judge.
Sharad is the brother of a sitting 9th Circuit Court Judge, Roopali Desai.
Sharad, Vice President and General Counsel for defense contractor Honeywell, worked as a civil litigator for Arizona law firm Osborn Maledon. At Honeywell, he focused on IT, Digital, and Strategic matters as well as Supply Chain and Electronic Solutions, according to his LinkedIn profile. Prior to his civil practice he worked as a law clerk for now-retired Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Rebecca White Berch during her 13-year tenure as Vice Chief Justice.
In a joint press release, Sinema said, “Sharad Desai possesses the experience, integrity, and intellect to serve as a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. I’m proud to have recommended his nomination to the White House and I look forward to securing his bipartisan confirmation by the United States Senate.”
Kelly added, “The President has nominated Mr. Desai, who is experienced and well-regarded by Arizona’s legal community, to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.” He added, “I congratulate him on this important nomination and look forward to working towards his confirmation in the United States Senate.”
As reported by Reuters, Sharad was in attendance at his sister’s confirmation hearing where she told the Senate Judiciary Committee that her brother and sister, who is an Arizona law professor, are her “biggest cheerleaders.” The outlet also noted that Roopali Desai was an election lawyer prior to her appointment and has worked for Sen. Sinema’s political campaigns.
While both Desais are highly experienced attorneys with impressive qualifications, the political significance of Roopali Desai’s work in recent years cannot be overstated, or overlooked. And whether the political efforts of then-counselor Desai influenced the nomination of one or both of them will very likely play into Sharad Desai’s confirmation hearing, along with any potential nominations that University of Arizona Law Professor Shefali Milczarek-Desai might see in the future.
A federal court ruled that abortionists can challenge the state’s ban on discriminatory abortions.
The Ninth Circuit Court ruled on Monday in Isaacson v. Mayes that abortionists may petition for an injunction against state law prohibiting abortions based on fetal genetic abnormality, dubbed the “Reason Regulations.” Judges Ronald Gould, Andrew Hurwitz, and Roopali Desai agreed in their ruling with the abortionists’ claim that they endured economic harm. The abortionists blamed the abortion ban’s vagueness for moving them to conduct less abortions out of caution.
Specifically, the abortionists claimed that the discriminatory abortion ban violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments: the threat of prison jeopardized their liberty interest, and the threats of license revocation, monetary damages, and revenue loss jeopardized their property interest. The circuit court dismissed the state’s claim of interest in regulating medical practice.
“That their services include abortion does not alter the fact that Plaintiffs make money providing these services and have lost money because the Reason Regulations restrict what services they can provide,” stated the ruling.
During the trial, the abortionists revealed that patients with likely or confirmed fetal abnormalities made up a significant part of their business.
The “Reason Regulations” made it a felony to either knowingly solicit or accept money to finance an abortion, or to perform an abortion, based on a fetal genetic abnormality.
The abortionists claimed that their overcompliance with the statute was due to the vagueness of the term “genetic abnormality,” and the statute’s lack of details on determining how much that factor had to play into a patient’s decision to get an abortion as well as the level of knowledge an abortionist would have to have in order to be guilty of violating the ban.
Monday’s ruling reversed an Arizona District Court order issued in February allowing the ban to go into effect. The district court rejected the abortionists’ request for a preliminary injunction, since the Supreme Court had just ruled that no constitutional right to abortion existed in its Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health ruling last year overturning Roe v. Wade.
The federal court remanded the case back to the district court for it to decide, once more, whether the state ban on discriminatory abortion may go into effect.
A similar ongoing case may nullify the results of Isaacson v. Mayes. In Planned Parenthood Arizona v. Mayes, the Arizona Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in December to determine whether the state’s preemptive, pre-statehood, total abortion ban remains enforceable due to the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
The state’s total abortion ban was suspended following the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade that created a constitutional right to abortion. Last year — prior to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health — the state passed its 15-week abortion ban.
Planned Parenthood Arizona v. Mayes would decide which of the two laws has authority in the state.
The state never repealed its total abortion ban. The 15-week ban didn’t preclude the enforcement of any other preceding abortion laws.
Last week, Planned Parenthood Arizona (PPAZ) filed a motion to recuse Arizona Supreme Court Judge William Montgomery for his personal beliefs opposing PPAZ.
"[We] believe that all litigants in Arizona are entitled to have their cases heard by judges who are not biased against them, and that includes [us]…" Read more: https://t.co/e0nu7RxSst
— Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. (@PPArizona) October 26, 2023
Earlier this month, Gov. Katie Hobbs filed an amicus brief to oppose the total abortion ban.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
On Monday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in a lawsuit arguing against the state’s ban on abortions solely for genetic defects.
In the case, Isaacson v. Mayes, pro-abortion doctors and groups appealed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction against Arizona’s ban on abortions based on genetic defects.
The legislature passed the ban, SB 1457, back in 2021.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the ban are abortionists Paul Isaacson and Eric Reuss, along with the National Council of Jewish Women, Arizona National Organization For Women, and Arizona Medical Association.
Isaacson was a Phoenix-based abortionist with Family Planning Associates. Reuss was a Scottsdale-based OBGYN and former board member for Planned Parenthood of Arizona.
Judges Roopali Desai, Ronald Gould, and Andrew Hurwitz heard the oral arguments. While Desai and Hurwitz were engaged in the arguments with their questions, Gould hardly spoke except to request an adjustment of the livestream audio.
In March, House Speaker Ben Toma (R-LD27) and Senate President Warren Petersen (R-LD14) stepped up to defend the ban after Attorney General Kris Mayes said she would refuse to enforce the law. Mayes is acting as the defense in the lawsuit currently.
During Monday’s oral arguments, the main question at hand was whether the plaintiffs had Article III standing. Article III of the Constitution, as held by the Supreme Court, requires plaintiffs to prove an actual or imminent alleged injury that is concrete and particularized.
Jessica Sklarsky with the Center for Reproductive Rights argued on behalf of the plaintiffs that they suffer undisputed economic harms and threat of prosecution due to the abortion ban. The district court determined that the plaintiffs failed to meet the standard set by the 2014 Supreme Court case Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, which determined that pre-enforcement challenges satisfy the Article III standard and are justiciable when a statute’s enforcement is sufficiently imminent.
Sklarksy also argued that the abortion ban qualified as a vague law, and therefore violated due process rights.
“Vague laws force those they govern to either avoid doing anything that is arguably covered by the law, or to engage in that conduct with the constant threat of arbitrary enforcement,” said Sklarsky.
Denise Harle with Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), counsel on behalf of Toma and Petersen, countered that no Article III injury exists due to the lack of a credible threat of enforcement.
Harle pointed out that all 15 county attorneys have acceded their authority to Mayes, and that Mayes has disavowed enforcement of abortion law. Harle also pointed out Gov. Katie Hobbs’ executive order in June usurping all county attorneys’ authority on abortion law and conferring it to Mayes.
Hurwitz and Desai pushed back against Harle’s reference to Mayes and Hobbs’ conduct, arguing that Mayes didn’t issue a disclaimer in this case specifically detailing her intent to not enforce the law.
Hurwitz indicated that Toma and Petersen’s support of the law, as well as the private enforcement aspect of the law, indicated a credible threat of enforcement.
“Does the law really require that a credible threat be communicated? If the state of Arizona passes a statute and the two leaders of the legislature are here defending its constitutionality, isn’t that enough to show there is a credible not a certain but a credible threat of enforcement?” asked Hurwitz.
Harle disagreed, saying the potential for private enforcement constituted a hypothetical. She alluded to the arrangement by Hobbs and Mayes to not enforce abortion law.
“[T]he theoretical possibility of an injury sometime in the future is too conjectural when it’s not imminent,” said Harle.
Desai followed up by stating that the court’s decision in Tingley v. Fergusoncould apply to this case. In that case, a family counselor challenged the state of Washington’s ban on conversion therapy as a violation of free speech and religious practice. Harle responded that the existence of a law alone wasn’t sufficient for direct injury.
“Virtually anyone could look at a law, say ‘I’m not sure what that means, I’m going to do something or not do something’ [and] that would be enough for a federal court to weigh in and adjudicate the merits of that claim on a facial challenge,” said Harle.
Watch the full hearing here:
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
President Joe Biden’s Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals nominee, Phoenix-based attorney Roopali Desai, spurred Republican criticisms that her progressive activism throughout her career would result in judicial activism.
As AZ Free News reported, Desai has long defended and advanced Democratic Party interests. In addition to the nature of the cases she’s taken on over the years, Desai serves on a number of boards advancing progressive causes: Just Communities Arizona (JCA), which advocates for abolishing prisons; Save Our Schools Arizona (SOSAZ), which advocates for an end to school choice; National Cannabis Roundtable, which advocates for federal marijuana legalization; and Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, which litigates to advance progressive initiatives. In the past, she served on the boards of New Pathways for Youth, ACLU of Arizona, and Arizona Family Health Partnership.
During the Senate Judiciary Committee’s confirmation hearing earlier this month, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) cited Desai’s decades of championing progressive causes. He asked if her personal views would bleed into her judiciary rulings. Desai said there was a distinction in roles between lawyers and judges.
“No matter what matter I have in front of me, and no matter what my personal or political views may be, they will not play a role in any case or decision that comes before me,” insisted Desai.
Desai rejected characterization by Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) that the bulk of her clients were Democrat-affiliated. She asserted that she’s represented corporations, small business owners, and even the government in a range of issues from business to constitutional law disputes.
“My work as a litigator for almost 20 years spans a much broader range of clients and matters than just the ones you’ve referenced,” said Desai.
At the opening of the hearing, Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) offered a lengthy opening statement in favor of Desai. Sinema characterized Desai as a balanced arbitrator of the law. In the past, Desai served as legal counsel for Sinema’s campaign. Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ) also issued support for Desai’s nomination.
I’ve known Roopali for over 10 years. She's a trusted legal expert highly regarded across the political spectrum in Arizona, known for her integrity and fairness. Glad to see the President nominate her to serve as a U.S. Judge. https://t.co/SdOl4u1VUL
Like both of Arizona’s senators, the other Democratic senators didn’t venture an in-depth exploration of Desai’s views. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) used his time to heap praise and gratitude on Desai. His remarks echoed the remarks he issued during the confirmation hearings of now-Supreme Court (SCOTUS) Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Senator Amy Klobuchar (DFL-MN) remarked repeatedly that Desai received bipartisan support among the likes of politicians, lawyers, and law enforcement. Desai explained that support for her nomination was rooted in her equal and fair application of the law.
“I would point to my respect for the rule of law. Our system of justice demands judges to apply the law objectively, fair-mindedly, and to honor the precedent of our courts,” replied Desai.
By contrast, the Republican senators were more direct about discerning the nature of Desai’s legal career and how it would relate to her appointment in the Ninth Circuit. Desai didn’t elaborate on the impetus of her legal work, instead recounting the basic facts of the cases in question and repeating that she would stand by higher court precedent.
Concerning elections, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) asked Desai to explain why she opposed Arizona laws banning ballot harvesting. Desai explained that she believed in her case, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, that the two Arizona laws banning out-of-precinct voting and ballot harvesting, respectively, violated the Voting Rights Act (VRA). She added that, although the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) didn’t agree with her argument, it did impose a test reviewing laws for discriminatory effects or results — guideposts that Desai pledged to follow if confirmed to the court.
Grassley then asked Desai whether she believed that Christians refusing services to same-sex couples such as wedding invitations constituted religious discrimination, citing her arguments in the case Brush & NIB Studio, LC v. City of Phoenix. The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the city of Phoenix couldn’t compel businessowners to violate their religious beliefs by serving same-sex couples.
Desai didn’t answer Grassley directly, but said that she would uphold SCOTUS precedent on the matter.
Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) asked Desai about her involvement in a 2016 case, John Doe, et al. v. Heritage Academy Incorporated, et al., which argued that the Heritage Academy charter schools were imposing a religious education. Desai represented the plaintiff in the case, which was ultimately instigated by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, an organization seeking to eradicate Christian religion from the public sector. Lee asked Desai to explain the legal standard supporting her argument in her case brief, which proposed that SCOTUS precedent in Sherbert v. Verner supported that the charter schools’ teachings imposed a burden on students who didn’t share the same beliefs.
Lee countered that the SCOTUS ruling didn’t contain any of the arguments she proposed in her brief. Desai said she couldn’t recall the details of the case, but insisted she would follow SCOTUS precedent.
“It does cause me some concern because the source of authority is one you can’t identify, I believe because it doesn’t exist,” said Lee.
There were several other legal endeavors of Desai’s not addressed at length in the Senate confirmation hearing.
Desai attempted to stop the State Senate’s Cyber Ninjas-led audit on behalf of the Arizona Democratic Party. Desai also intervened to help defeat the Arizona Republican Party’s challenge to the state’s mail-in early voting system, echoing Democratic Party sentiments that issues with mail-in voting were an infringement on voter rights.
Concerning schools, Desai served as counsel for the Arizona School Boards Association (ASBA). With her help, ASBA defeated the state’s mask mandate ban last November and overturned a number of laws tied to the state budget — including a ban on Critical Race Theory in K-12 classrooms. Desai also defended a challenge to Prop 305, a ballot initiative from SOSAZ. Shortly after, Desai joined their board of directors, where she remains at present.
Desai also served as counsel for Prop 208 and authored its summary: a ballot initiative to increase teacher funding through an additional income tax. If approved, that measure would’ve rendered Arizona the tenth-highest tax rate in the nation.
Additionally, Desai authored Prop 207’s summary: the ballot initiative that legalized marijuana for adults over 21 years old. Afterwards, the National Cannabis Roundtable appointed her to their advisory board.
Desai has also worked with the likes of pro-abortion organization Planned Parenthood, open borders advocates La Raza, globalist billionaire George Soros, and Russiagate hoax and longtime DNC lawyer Marc Elias.
In the wake of the latest confirmation hearing, Republicans have issued public criticisms of Desai. Mike Davis, founder of an organization that advocates for constitutional judiciaries called Article III Project (A3P), insisted to Fox News host Laura Ingraham that Desai was a “left-wing radical” and one of the worst Biden nominees.
“She also thinks that our criminal justice system is racist. She’s going to have a hard time doing her job,” claimed Davis.
Thanks to @IngrahamAngle for having me on to discuss Roopali Desai, President Biden's 9th Circuit nominee.
She wants to abolish prisons, defund the police, mask kids, & pollute their minds with CRT.
On Thursday, President Joe Biden nominated Phoenix attorney Roopali Desai as a candidate for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Desai is best known for her election law work. Some of Desai’s most prominent recent work included her representation of the Arizona Secretary of State’s office after the 2020 general election. Desai served on Secretary of State Katie Hobbs’ transition team from December 2018 to January 2019.
In court filings to the Arizona Republican Party’s challenge to the state’s mail-in early voting system, Desai characterized challenges to election integrity as “legally baseless” means to an end of restricting voter rights. In her work, she echoed progressive challenges to election integrity doubts as a threat to democracy.
“Their claims are part of a broader ongoing effort to sow doubt about our electoral process to justify infringing voting rights,” wrote Desai.
Mohave County Superior Court Judge Lee Jantzen ruled earlier this month that mail-in voting didn’t violate the state constitution.
Roopali Desai is an exceptional attorney and will make an exceptional judge. I am thrilled with her nomination and grateful for all the work she has done on behalf of this office. She has always stood with us in defending Arizona's voters. https://t.co/uxGEESWsCL
— Secretary Katie Hobbs (@SecretaryHobbs) June 15, 2022
Desai also sued to stop the State Senate’s Cyber Ninjas-led audit on behalf of the Arizona Democratic Party. That lawsuit failed; Desai then sued for open records access to the audit. That case is still underway.
Desai also served as counsel for Arizona School Boards Association (ASBA) successful challenge to the state’s mask mandate ban last November, a ruling that overturned a number of laws tied to the state budget.
On other school matters, Desai defended a challenge to Prop 305 in 2017 — a ballot initiative brought by Save Our Schools Arizona (SOS), a public school activist organization opposing school choice expansion. Voters rolled back school choice expansion through the ballot initiative in November 2018. Desai joined SOS’s board of directors in January 2019, and has served on it since.
Desai wrote the 100-word ballot initiative summary for Prop 208, then defended challenges to it. The Arizona Supreme Court sided with Desai on the ballot initiative summary. However, the Maricopa County Superior Court struck down Prop 208 as unconstitutional in March.
Desai also wrote the 100-word ballot initiative summary for Prop 207, which legalized marijuana for adults over 21 years old.
In the past, Desai served as legal counsel for the campaigns of Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) and Congressman Tom O’Halleran (D-AZ-01), the Professional Fire Fighters of Arizona (PFFAZ), and the United Phoenix Firefighters Association.
I’ve known Roopali for over 10 years. She's a trusted legal expert highly regarded across the political spectrum in Arizona, known for her integrity and fairness. Glad to see the President nominate her to serve as a U.S. Judge. https://t.co/SdOl4u1VUL
USA Today named Desai one of their 12 national honorees for 2022 Women of the Year. Desai is also a professor of practice with the University of Arizona (UArizona) James E. Rogers College of Law. Desai earned her bachelor’s degree in Women’s Studies from UArizona, later earning her Master of Public Health and a law degree from the university.
Along with Desai, Biden’s circuit court nominees were Eastern District of Louisiana Judge Dana Douglas for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Department of Justice (DOJ) Deputy Assistant Attorney General Bradley Garcia for the D.C. Circuit.
Biden’s latest district court nominees were Puerto Rico District Court Clerk María del Antongiori-Jordán for Puerto Rico District Court, Puerto Rico Court of Appeals Judge Gina Méndez-Miró to the Puerto Rico District Court, Puerto Rico District Court Magistrate Judge Camille Vélez-Rivé for Puerto Rico District Court, and attorney Jerry Blackwell for the Minnesota District Court.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
