by Jonathan Eberle | Oct 22, 2025 | News
By Jonathan Eberle |
Arizona House Republicans have taken legal action to defend a decades-old state law governing birth-certificate amendments after Attorney General Kris Mayes failed to confirm whether her office would appeal a recent federal ruling striking the statute down.
Speaker of the House Steve Montenegro announced Monday that the Arizona House Republican Caucus, alongside Senate President Warren Petersen, filed a motion in U.S. District Court seeking to intervene as defendants for the purpose of appealing the decision and requesting a stay pending appeal.
The move follows U.S. District Judge James Soto’s September 30 ruling, which permanently enjoined enforcement of A.R.S. § 36-337, the provision requiring proof of a “sex change operation” before the state can amend the sex marker on a birth certificate. The injunction orders the Arizona Department of Health Services to revise its regulations within 120 days and to allow amendments based on a doctor’s attestation of a “sex change.”
“Arizona’s laws are not optional,” Montenegro said in a statement. “When a federal court rewrites a statute, the Legislature has a duty to defend it. If the Attorney General won’t defend Arizona’s laws, we will. The ruling now opens the door for anyone to change the sex marker on a birth certificate with just a doctor’s note, erasing decades of statute and undermining the integrity of vital records.”
According to the motion, Republican leaders made repeated inquiries to the Attorney General’s Office beginning October 1 about whether the state would appeal. After more than two weeks without a definitive answer, House and Senate leaders moved to intervene to ensure that the state’s position would be represented before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The legislative leaders argue that Arizona law gives them authority to defend state statutes when their constitutionality is challenged and that the Attorney General’s inaction effectively leaves the law undefended. Their filing asserts that the federal court’s ruling misapplies equal protection principles and conflicts with recent Supreme Court guidance in United States v. Skrmetti—a 2025 case addressing gender-related classifications under the Constitution.
The lawmakers also requested an immediate stay of the injunction, warning that allowing it to take effect could cause “irreparable harm” to the state by forcing the issuance of amended birth certificates that could later be invalidated if the appeal succeeds.
This legal dispute comes months after Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed HB 2438, a bill sponsored by Rep. Rachel Keshel (R-LD17) that would have barred any changes to the sex marker on birth certificates, reinforcing the same policy now at issue in court.
If granted, the intervention would allow the Arizona Legislature’s top Republicans to pursue an appeal directly to the Ninth Circuit in defense of the statute—marking a rare instance of state lawmakers stepping into a role traditionally held by the Attorney General.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Matthew Holloway | Oct 19, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a brief in support of Arizona’s law requiring proof of citizenship to vote. The intervention comes in Mi Familia Vota v. Warren Petersen, a lawsuit filed by leftist groups against two laws passed by the Republican-controlled Arizona Legislature in 2022.
The laws require voters registering via the state form to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to participate in state and local elections. The DOJ’s brief backs Senate President Warren Petersen’s defense of the laws following a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that invalidated key provisions. The brief argues that Arizona’s birthplace attestation requirement “does not violate the Materiality Provision because it is generally important that an election official would consider important to the process of determining an applicant’s eligibility to vote.”
“We are thankful to again have a White House and Department of Justice committed to the rule of law and fair elections,” Petersen said in a statement. “The DOJ’s brief is appreciated in our fight to uphold a commonsense law and the will of the people. Given the clear precedent handed down from the U.S. Supreme Court, we are confident we will ultimately prevail. With the continued absence of our governor and attorney general, thankfully, the Arizona Legislature is again picking up the slack and is returning to our nation’s high court to defend election integrity.”
The case traces back to challenges by Mi Familia Vota and other groups, including some based outside Arizona, against House Bill 2492. The law bars enhances the legal guardrails of the Arizona voter registration process, ensuring that proof of citizenship is required to ensure only U.S. citizens are voting in our elections.
In August 2024, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel vacated an emergency stay previously issued by another panel of the court. That decision permitted Arizona residents to register using the state form without proof of citizenship for federal races, such as U.S. president and Congress.
Petersen then sought emergency relief from the U.S. Supreme Court, which affirmed Arizona’s authority to reject incomplete registrations, marking the last binding order in the dispute until the Ninth Circuit’s latest deviation.
Eleven judges dissented from the Ninth Circuit’s most-recent majority opinion, saying, “Republican government serves as the keystone of the Constitution. In such a government, a majority of citizens who lawfully vote determines who represents us in the White House, Congress, and state legislatures. Courts must therefore defend the franchise—both by protecting the right of all citizens to vote, and by ensuring non-citizens do not vote. Arizona passed laws to protect the franchise… Sadly, the panel majority opinion undermines republican government, shreds federalism and the separation of powers, and imperils free and fair elections.”
The case now heads back to the U.S. Supreme Court for potential review, where Arizona will seek to enforce its citizenship verification requirements.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Matthew Holloway | Sep 2, 2024 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
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.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Daniel Stefanski | Aug 3, 2023 | Education, News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Arizona’s Republican Legislative leaders are continuing to defend the integrity of women’s sports in federal court.
On Tuesday, Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Ben Toma filed an emergency motion with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit after a federal district judge blocked the ‘Save Women’s Sports Act’ from going into effect.
In their motion, the legislators wrote, “Under the district court’s preliminary injunction order, ‘the [Save Women’s Sports] Act shall not prevent Plaintiffs from participating in girls’ sports’ and ‘Plaintiffs shall be allowed to play girls’ sports at their respective schools.’ Any success by Plaintiffs in try-outs and meets will displace biological girls from making a team, getting playing time, and succeeding in final results. Biological girls will be irreparably harmed if they are displaced by, forced to compete against, or risk injury from Plaintiffs.”
Petersen released the following statement to accompany the announcement of his latest action in court over this issue: “Not only science, but common sense clearly supports the fact that in general, boys are bigger and stronger than girls at all stages of life. Expecting them to compete against each other in athletic competition is reckless, irresponsible and will subject girls to increased risk for injury. It’s unfortunate young girls in our public schools will face these heightened dangers while participating in sports competition against boys and lose out on athletic opportunities because this law is on hold. What’s even more disheartening is our Attorney General has no desire to protect our female athletes, prompting myself and Speaker Toma to do her job for her. I’m confident our judicial system will agree with the protections we’re fighting for so that all young women and girls in Arizona will have the opportunity to compete on an even playing field.”
Speaker Ben Toma issued a short comment on Twitter, posting, “We filed an emergency motion asking the 9th Circuit to allow Arizona’s Save Women’s Sports Act to remain in effect pending appeal & the Court set an expedited schedule. The district court’s ruling is wrong; it has harmful, real-world consequences for female athletes.”
Last month, Judge Jennifer Zipps granted a preliminary injunction against SB 1165, the Save Women’s Sports Act, which blocked the law from going into effect. Arizona’s Republican Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne, the defendant in the case, promised to appeal the ruling, saying, “This will ultimately be decided by the United States Supreme Court, and they will rule in our favor. The Plaintiffs in this case claimed that this only involves pre-pubescent boys, but we presented peer-reviewed studies that show pre-pubescent boys have an advantage over girls in sports. The only expert presented by the Plaintiffs was a medical doctor who makes his money doing sex transition treatments on children and who has exactly zero peer-reviewed studies to support his opinion.”
One of the representatives of the plaintiffs, Justin R. Rassi from Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, lauded the judge’s ruling, writing, “The Court’s well-reasoned decision exposes the lack of any legitimate justification for this discriminatory law, which inflicts severe and irreparable harm on transgender girls like Megan and Jane. We are very happy that, as a result of this ruling, Jane and Megan will be immediately able to resume playing sports with their friends.”
The latest Motion from Petersen and Toma follows a series of actions they have taken in this legal matter occurring in federal court. Earlier this year, they filed a Motion to Intervene, highlighting that because “Attorney General Kris Mayes is not defending the constitutionality of the law,” they were taking this step. Petersen said at the time, “We’re looking forward to fighting for the rights of female athletes across Arizona, as well as for the Court making it clear Arizona’s law protecting women and girls should be enforced.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Page 1 of 11
