Arizona’s leading legislative Republicans are cheering on the nation’s high court as it agreed to hear arguments in a significant case of interest to the state.
Earlier this month, the General Counsel for the Arizona House Republicans, Linley Wilson, announced that the Supreme Court of the United States had granted cert in City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson and Logan. Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Ben Toma had filed an amicus brief at the Court in September 2023 in the matter concerning “three homeless individuals in Grants Pass (who) filed this lawsuit to try to stop local and state governments from combating the public safety threats, the public health dangers, and the inhumane conditions associated with these homeless encampments.”
The city had received unfavorable opinions from the federal courts at both the district and appeals (Ninth Circuit) levels, leading to the appeal to the nation’s high court.
In their brief, Petersen and Toma asserted that “the Legislature also has a pressing interest in homelessness because it confronts the realities of America’s homelessness crisis every day, including only a few blocks from the state capitol complex. Phoenix, Arizona, is home to one of the nation’s largest homeless encampments, commonly known as ‘The Zone.’ With hundreds of homeless residents, The Zone is a place of intense poverty, frequent crime (including multiple homicides), social instability, and poor living standards.”
The lawmakers also opined, “the Ninth Circuit decided it was better at making policy than elected state legislatures and city councils.” They argued the opinion from the Ninth Circuit “injects the federal courts into a policymaking area reserved for state and local lawmakers, entrenches a plainly incorrect and deeply damaging construction of the Eighth Amendment, and improperly interferes with state and local policymaking on the critically important issue of homelessness.”
Wilson previously pointed to a social media post from California Governor Gavin Newsom about the issue of federal courts inserting case law into “local efforts to clear street encampments,” stating, “This humanitarian crisis is not a partisan issue. The 9th Circuit’s opinions harm the homeless and the Legislature’s ability to craft effective policies.”
This humanitarian crisis is not a partisan issue. The 9th Circuit’s opinions harm the homeless and the Legislature’s ability to craft effective policies. Read the amicus brief filed today by @RepBenToma and @votewarren in SCOTUS👇🏼https://t.co/7VCv5B3MOMhttps://t.co/QyfE8C8gkd
On Tuesday, the Arizona Supreme Court held oral arguments on the state’s two conflicting abortion bans in the case Planned Parenthood et al v. Kristin Mayes/Hazelrigg.
The court is determining the fate of two conflicting laws: the total abortion ban outlawing all but life-saving abortions, in existence prior to Arizona achieving statehood with versions dating back to Arizona’s first laws as a territory in 1864, and the 2022 ban restricting abortions to 15 weeks’ gestation except in cases of medical emergency. The latter law was codified just months before the Supreme Court overturnedRoe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, who has refused to defend the pre-statehood ban, declared the day before the oral arguments that the ban would relegate Arizonans to a lesser, premodern society.
“Arizonans cannot be shoved back to the 1860s,” said Mayes.
Tomorrow, the Arizona Supreme Court will hear arguments on the harmonization of two conflicting statutes on abortion. The consequences of this case are huge. Arizonans cannot be shoved back to the 1860s. https://t.co/rrfc7wI5AJ
Gov. Katie Hobbs encouraged voters to sign the ballot petition to legalize all abortion up to birth.
If you’re as outraged as I am that there’s a possibility for a Civil War-era abortion ban to go into effect in 2023, then take action right now and sign the petition to put a right to abortion on Arizona’s ballot next November by going to https://t.co/ZYodddLbWGpic.twitter.com/9NqlGdl3fX
Stepping up to defend the pre-statehood ban in Mayes’ stead and first to speak during Tuesday’s oral arguments was Jake Warner, an attorney with the Scottsdale-based conservative Christian legal organization, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).
Warner proposed that a certain continuity exists between the pre-statehood ban, which the court referred to as the “territorial law,” and the 2022 ban limiting abortions to 15 weeks’ gestation.
Per Warner, the pre-statehood ban imposes a certain authority on the 2022 statute: all abortions prior to 15 weeks must be life-saving, and that abortions after 15 weeks must not only be life-saving but based on a medical emergency. Warner said that the language of the 2022 statute gave express direction to give deference to the pre-statehood ban.
Chief Justice Robert Brutinel and Vice Chief Justice Ann Timmer didn’t appear convinced of the argument. The pair indicated that physicians would be confused by the two statutes.
"Arizona’s law affirms that life is a human right. I am hopeful that the court will uphold this life-saving principle." – ADF's Jake Warner pic.twitter.com/YmlmnV4zvy
On the subject of ectopic pregnancies — an oft-referenced terminal condition in the abortion debate — Warner said that physicians wouldn’t be punished for their removal, since ectopic pregnancies constitute a medical emergency and their removal constitutes a life-saving measure.
Warner said that the 2022 restriction doesn’t repeal the pre-statehood abortion ban, because it created no new right to an abortion. Brutinel posited that the legislative intent with the newer law was to legalize abortion up to 15 weeks’ gestation. Warner countered that the legislature’s intent with its 2022 restriction was to ensure that it protected unborn life to the greatest extent possible.
Justice Clint Bolick questioned how the current law doesn’t conflict with the territorial ban, challenging the implication that something that wasn’t able to be prosecuted prior to Dobbs could now be prosecuted. Likewise, Brutinel said that a physician couldn’t have been prosecuted for conducting abortions under the new law. Warner responded that the language of the 2022 statute only purports to regulate terminations after 15 weeks, not before.
Counsel for Planned Parenthood Arizona, Andy Gaona, argued that the state legislature has displayed a progressive permissiveness when it comes to allowable abortions. Gaona stopped short of declaring the existence of a right to abortion at the outset of his arguments, but did declare, repeatedly, that abortion constituted a form of health care in closing.
“We have never maintained the right to an abortion exists,” said Gaona. “Abortion is health care. I’m not sure anyone has ever said that in this courtroom.”
Planned Parenthood counsel closing remarks before the Arizona Supreme Court: "Abortion is health care. I'm not sure anyone has ever said that in this courtroom." pic.twitter.com/NKh4O6fD6v
Contrary to what Warner posited, Gaona argued that the 2022 law allows abortions up to 15 weeks without prosecutions, citing the previous court of appeals decision. Timmer asked whether the state legislature would need to declare a right to an abortion in order to permit that interpretation; Gaona responded that the legislature only needs to regulate criminal conduct to do so, arguing that criminal laws allow that which they don’t criminalize.
Bolick pointed out the 2022 law specifically referenced the territorial law in its construction:
“This act does not […] Repeal, by implication or otherwise, section 13-3603, Arizona Revised Statutes, or any other applicable state law regulating or restricting abortion,” stated the provision.
Gaona disagreed. He said that the court of appeals’ harmonization of the statutes didn’t repeal the pre-statehood law, even by removing prosecution, because the 2022 law now qualifies as the criminal prohibition for elective abortions. Gaona clarified that a physician couldn’t be prosecuted under the territorial statute, but could under the 2022 law if they conduct abortions after 15 weeks.
Gaona argued that a series of statutes that aren’t self-referential or fail to include language repealing an old statute qualify as an implied repeal. Gaona said that if the legislature’s intent was to resurrect the pre-statehood ban, it should’ve stated that clearly “and it clearly didn’t do that.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has agreed to take up a case that would have an impact on Gov. Katie Hobbs’ past censorship activities.
The case, Murthy v. Missouri, focuses on the alleged coordinated campaign by government officials and social media companies to suppress and censor certain speech on major public issues, specifically the COVID-19 lab leak theory, pandemic lockdowns, vaccine side effects, election fraud, and the Hunter Biden laptop story. Hobbs, while secretary of state and during her gubernatorial campaign, coordinated with social media companies to remove certain speech online.
Hobbs’ then-chief of staff and former assistant secretary of state, Allie Bones, said in a statement prior to Hobbs’ inauguration that it was the job of governments to purge the public square of perceived misinformation and disinformation.
“One of the ways we [make sure that voters are informed] is by working to counter disinformation online that can confuse voters,” stated Bones. “This is yet another example of conspiracy theorists trying to create chaos and confusion by casting doubt on our election system. It’s unfair to Arizona voters and it’s harmful to our democracy.”
Although SCOTUS accepted consideration of Murthy v. Missouri, they didn’t accept a lower court’s injunction preventing government officials from continuing their coordination with social media companies to moderate online speech. Justices John Roberts, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson together granted the Biden administration’s petition to remove the injunction, effectively permitting the government to engage in censorship online.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the SCOTUS majority’s suspension of the injunction was “disturbing,” and that any censorship of private speech is antithetical to democracy. Alito dismissed the Biden administration’s argument that an injunction against coordinating with social media companies to control citizens’ speech was the same as preventing government officials from speaking on a matter.
“The injunction applies only when the Government crosses the line and begins to coerce or control others’ exercise of their free-speech rights,” said Alito. “Does the Government think that the First Amendment allows Executive Branch officials to engage in such conduct? Does it have plans for this to occur between now and the time when the case is decided?”
Alito further declared that SCOTUS had effectively ruled to allow the Biden administration to continue with its First Amendment violations identified by the lower courts.
“At this time in the history of our country, what the Court has done, I fear, will be seen by some as giving the Government a green light to use heavy-handed tactics to skew the presentation of views on the medium that increasingly dominates the dissemination of news,” said Alito. “That is most unfortunate.”
Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined Alito in his dissent.
Gov. Hobbs issued an emergency heat declaration with an expired enforcement date the day after additional emails revealing her coordinated censorship efforts were released. Hobbs dismissed the emails as a “sideshow,” but didn’t deny allegations of maintaining unscrupulous relationships with major social media companies.
Hobbs’ past coordination with social media companies prompted the House to establish an interim ad hoc committee on Oversight, Accountability, and Big Tech. The committee first convened in September and met once more earlier this month.
While SCOTUS contemplates the case, Hobbs already has defense provided by the state’s chief legal officer.
In August, Attorney General Kris Mayes joined a 21-state coalition of Democratic attorneys general opposing the then-active federal injunction. Mayes declared that control over free speech is paramount to public safety, implying that governmental interest in safety outweighs the constitutional right of free speech.
“Social media companies and government officials must have open communication in order to ensure the safety of Americans online,” said Mayes. “A pillar of the U.S. government is to ensure the safety and wellbeing of its citizens. The lower court’s decision impedes on this protection and means federal, state and local officials cannot contact social media companies about dangerous online content.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
A long-awaited elections challenge from the 2022 political cycle has finally been filed.
On Tuesday, 2022 Republican nominee for Arizona Attorney General, Abraham Hamadeh, filed an Appeal and Motion to Expedite in the Arizona Court of Appeals.
In a statement Tuesday night, Hamadeh said, “My legal team has just filed our Appeal on our election challenge and Motion to Expedite. Arizonans deserve to have their lawfully elected Attorney General to hold that office, and our state constitution demands it. With the numerous irregularities in the election, the initial trial, and numerous delays at the trial court, it’s long overdue that the judiciary expedite and take our claims seriously that thousands of lawful votes remain uncounted in the closest election in Arizona with the biggest recount discrepancy in history.”
The Arizona Attorney General’s race was decided late in 2022 – and long after the November General Election – with Democrat Kris Mayes over Hamadeh by 280 votes, triggering the Republican’s election challenges.
Hamadeh’s efforts to bring transparency to his razor-thin election result have continued long after his Democrat opponent, Kris Mayes, took office in January. Mayes has continued to show little public interest in the case, allowing her attorneys to handle matters in the courtroom while she continues to revamp the Arizona Attorney General’s Office from the policies of her predecessor, Republican Mark Brnovich.
The comments from Hamadeh also touched on his thoughts regarding the state of election integrity across Arizona and the country – especially how this issue pertained to his specific case. He shared, “Our democracy demands honesty, transparency, and accountability in order to rebuild the trust that so many Arizonans have lost in our elections. Our case seeks to enfranchise over 9,000 voters who voted on Election Day and did their part to have a say in their government. Their constitutional right to vote matters and their votes deserve to be counted.”
The Republican challenger promised a continued fight in court “to ensure that the will of the people is honored, and that our laws are upheld.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Democratic leadership and Biden officials split with their go-to election lawyer, Marc Elias; a 2021 Supreme Court loss from Arizona served as a major catalyst for the breakup. In that case, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, the court effectively gutted the federal Voting Rights Act by upholding Arizona’s restrictions on out-of-precinct voting and ballot harvesting.
Although Elias and Democratic leaders parted ways in April, it wasn’t until this past week that details of the split came to light.
According to unnamed sources who spoke with Axios, Elias went rogue in the Biden administration’s eyes: filing lawsuits without notice or consent, with Biden leaders only learning of them via social media or mainstream reporting; racking up large bills, such as the $20+ million payout from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Biden campaign for defending the 65 lawsuits challenging the 2020 election results; and public criticism of a bipartisan election bill crafted by key Biden leadership and Democrats.
Elias’ tactics also differed from the reported desires of Biden leadership. While Elias viewed all fights as worth taking up, Biden officials wanted to be more selective.
Elias was a longtime legal bulldog for the DNC. In 2016, Elias served as general counsel for the 2016 campaign of presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. Following Clinton’s loss, Elias served as a principal player in the Russiagate scandal. As Clinton’s general counsel, Elias billed for his hire of the opposition research firm, Fusion GPS, that created the Steele dossier: the Russian collusion allegations against former President Donald Trump leaked to Buzzfeed ten days before Trump’s inauguration that became a shadow over Trump’s entire presidency.
In 2020, Elias’ work resulted in key reforms to election law that lent to Democratic victories and the defense of challenges to President Joe Biden’s election.
As AZ Free News reported last November, Elias’ firm launched in 2021, Elias Law Group, was a listed address for the Black Lives Matter headquarters. The firm stated in the latest BLM’s IRS filing that it maintains all of BLM’s books and records. According to Federal Elections Commission (FEC) records, the Black Lives Matter PAC paid Elias’ firm over $14,800 from January to December of last year. Per their latest FEC filing on Monday, BLM has paid Elias’ firm nearly $3,000 so far this year.
One of the other main recipients of the BLM PAC’s disbursements is Premier Political Compliance founded and led by the former compliance director Christine Neville of the Perkins Coie firm, where Elias served as partner prior to launching his own firm. Both Neville and Elias departed Perkins Coie to launch their respective firms in 2021.
Elias has increasingly positioned himself as a public figure on the topic of election law and, as evident by working with BLM, other social issues. He has appeared in numerous interviews and maintained a consistent social media presence.
Last year, however, Elias deleted all tweets prior to April 4 without explanation. Around that time, federal investigators began to close in on those behind Russiagate. About a month before Elias purged his Twitter, the FEC fined the DNC and Clinton $113,000 for misrepresenting payments for opposition research used to create Russiagate.
Biden’s former chief of staff and re-election campaign leader, Ron Klain, said that relations between Elias and Biden leaders remain amicable despite the split.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
