by Matthew Holloway | Jan 14, 2026 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen (R–LD14) said he believes the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to uphold state laws that protect girls’ and women’s sports, following oral arguments in a closely watched case on whether biological males may compete in female athletic competitions.
Petersen attended oral arguments in West Virginia v. B.P.J. in Washington, D.C., where the Court heard challenges to state-level laws restricting participation in girls’ sports based on biological sex.
“It was an incredible experience to be in the Supreme Court with the justices in the room hearing their arguments,” Petersen said in an interview with AZ Free News following the hearing. “If I’m reading the room, I think we win this six to three.”
Petersen explained that much of the questioning from the Justices centered on the definition of sex under the law, rather than transgender status itself. “What it’s really boiling down to is the definition of sex,” he said. “They’ve conceded that it’s about sex. They’re not even arguing that it’s about transgender status.”
He described a moment during questioning in which Justice Alito pressed attorneys defending the challenge to the laws on how to define the term “woman,” calling the exchange revealing.
Petersen and House Speaker Steve Montenegro (R-LD29) joined the case through an amicus brief in September 2025 after Arizona Democrat Attorney General Kris Mayes declined to defend the Save Women’s Sports Act. Under Arizona statute, that authority shifted to legislative leadership.
“Unfortunately, you have an attorney general who’s not willing to defend our laws,” Petersen said. “But fortunately, the statute gives the Senate President and the Speaker standing. We were able to intervene and defend the law, and we’ve taken it all the way here.”
Petersen characterized the law as “common sense” and said lawmakers felt compelled to see it defended at the highest level.
“This is the same Women’s Sports Act to protect our girls and make sure they have these opportunities,” he said. “This law needed to be defended.”
Beyond athletics, Petersen said the case raises broader questions about state authority and federal overreach. “If they get this wrong, it would be devastating,” he said. “It would mean that your daughters, your granddaughters, your sisters—their chances to compete in sports and be champions—those dreams are shot.”
Petersen noted that while most states have enacted protections for girls’ sports, a Supreme Court ruling striking those laws down nationwide would leave states with no recourse. “At least if they leave it to the states, there would be some safe harbors,” he said. “If they ruled against everybody, there would be nowhere girls could go.”
Critics of the laws argue that they discriminate against transgender individuals. Petersen rejected that framing, saying the laws preserve opportunities while maintaining fairness.
“They still have opportunities,” he said. “They can be part of a co-ed team; they can play with people of the same biological sex or even create their own leagues. What they can’t do is play in biological girls’ sports.”
He added that the issue is necessary and unavoidable, pointing to female athletes who have lost titles and opportunities under policies that allow biological males to compete in girls’ categories.
If the Supreme Court upholds the laws, Petersen said no new legislation would be required in Arizona. “We already have the law,” he said. “We just want the law that we passed to be upheld.”
If the Court issues a narrow or adverse ruling, Petersen said lawmakers may be forced to explore alternative legislative approaches, though he cautioned that a sweeping loss could take years—or longer—to undo.
“That’s why it’s so critical they get it right,” he said. “If they get it wrong, it’s no different than Roe v. Wade. It could be decades, if ever, until it gets fixed.”
The Court is expected to issue its ruling as late as June this year, according to Petersen.
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 Staff Reporter | Dec 11, 2025 | Education, News
By Staff Reporter |
The Arizona Board of Education (ASBE) removed language relating to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) from state teaching standards and English language learning courses.
This follows a delay in their decision on the matter several months ago.
State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne published a press release approving ASBE’s decision to go forward with removing DEI language from Arizona education.
Arizona’s federal funding for 2026 amounts to about $870 million; should Arizona schools not purge DEI, that federal funding may be refused, per the Trump administration.
Horne said the DEI divestment not only counted as compliance with President Donald Trump’s executive order conditioning federal funding on the absence of DEI, but as a philosophical good for students.
“All people should be judged based on their character and ability, not their race or ethnicity. DEI language and programs promote the exact opposite, and they have no place in the classroom,” said Horne. “These terms do not belong in teaching standards, which are meant to direct educators on the most effective ways to teach students’ core academics. Every instructional minute is precious, and DEI efforts distract from that essential mission.”
Multiple federal courts issued nationwide preliminary injunctions against the DEI ban earlier this year. However, the proceedings of those cases were impacted by the Supreme Court ruling in June through Trump v. CASA that declared these and other nationwide injunctions improperly exceed the authority of federal courts. The Supreme Court determined that lower courts must offer specific relief to the involved parties, and generally can’t issue nationwide injunctions to non-plaintiffs.
Following this decision by ASBE, a dedicated working group launching in February will draft materials purging DEI from the Arizona Professional Teaching Standards and Structured English Immersion (SEI) Endorsement Course Frameworks.
These materials will define DEI-related language in order to determine which language to remove or revise.
All 15 counties will have representation in this working group. There will be special considerations to include teacher representatives from General Education, Special Education, and the various teacher subgroups such as English Language Learning, Gifted, and Talented programs.
Stakeholder input will be collected from the three public universities, county education superintendents, school administrators, Arizona Rural Education Association, Arizona Educators Association, and current Structured English Immersion course providers.
ASBE is scheduled to consider these materials next September.
While the state’s top education authority supports these modifications, other stakeholder groups oppose them.
The Arizona Education Association (AEA) submitted a letter to ASBE urging rejection of the proposed changes. AEA leadership claimed over 22,000 educators statewide signed onto the letter in their press release. That’s roughly one-third of the teacher workforce in the state. However, the letter clarified that AEA counted mere membership with their organization as equivalent to all members signing on to their letter.
AEA President Marisol Garcia said without DEI Arizona education would cause a “race to the bottom” — vulnerable to constant changes and little of the continuity required for imparting a strong education — as well as a purging of history.
The other major teachers unions at the national level — the American Federation of Teachers and National Education Association, as well as the civil rights organization, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People — sued the Trump administration to stop the DEI ban.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Oct 25, 2025 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
In 2022, the Arizona legislature passed—and then-Governor Ducey signed into law—a landmark election integrity bill: HB 2492. Authored by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, the law bolsters safeguards to our election process by requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote, ensuring that only U.S. citizens are voting in our elections.
It’s commonsense legislation that is popular with the public and a blueprint for other states looking to adopt nearly identical bills. And why wouldn’t it be? U.S. citizens cannot go into France, Australia, or any other country throughout the world and vote in their elections, so why should citizens from other countries be allowed to vote in our elections?
Yet immediately after HB 2492 was passed, a consortium of liberal organizations and the Biden Justice department sued to stop the law from going into effect. Now, after multiple trips to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, one of which included a bizarre ruling that required an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to let Arizona enforce our proof of citizenship requirements for the 2024 election (which we won), the entire law will now be going to the nation’s highest court.
We are confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the law in its entirety, but one issue about the litigation has been simmering beneath the surface: Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
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 Jonathan Eberle | Sep 23, 2025 | News
By Jonathan Eberle |
Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Steve Montenegro announced that Arizona’s legislative leaders have filed amicus briefs in two companion cases before the U.S. Supreme Court: Little v. Hecox (Idaho) and West Virginia v. B.P.J. The cases, expected to be argued this fall, address whether states may preserve the integrity and safety of girls’ and women’s sports by limiting participation to biological females.
Petersen emphasized that the cases offer the Court an opportunity to uphold fairness and safety in female athletics. “These cases give the Court an opportunity to affirm what science and common sense already make clear: biological males hold inherent physical advantages that make women’s athletic competitions unfair and unsafe when they are allowed to participate,” he said.
Speaker Montenegro echoed these sentiments, highlighting Arizona’s legislative action. “Arizona passed the Save Women’s Sports Act to keep competition fair for girls,” he said. “It’s unacceptable that our state’s top lawyer refuses to defend that law. While Attorney General Mayes stands aside, House Republicans are doing the job she won’t—standing up for Arizona’s daughters and every female athlete who trains and competes. The Ninth Circuit sidelined our law; I’m confident the Supreme Court will correct course and affirm what parents and coaches know: girls’ sports are for girls.”
The Save Women’s Sports Act, signed into law in 2022, restricts participation in girls’ athletic events at public schools to biological females. After Attorney General Mayes declined to defend the statute, Republican leaders in the House and Senate intervened in federal court. While the Ninth Circuit recognized the state’s interests in competitive fairness, student safety, and equal athletic opportunities, it left the act enjoined as applied to two transgender, biologically male athletes.
Arizona’s briefs in the Idaho and West Virginia cases urge the Supreme Court to uphold state laws that maintain female-only sports to protect safety, fairness, and equal athletic opportunities. The filings assert that the federal injunction against Arizona’s law has already harmed girls, impacting placements, roster spots, and playing time. They also argue that courts should defer to elected legislatures—rather than unelected athletic bodies—when setting uniform participation standards, particularly in areas involving scientific and medical disputes.
“Girls deserve a level playing field,” Speaker Montenegro said. “House Republicans will continue to vigorously defend Arizona’s law and support states working to keep girls’ sports fair and safe.” The Supreme Court’s rulings in the Idaho and West Virginia cases will likely shape the future of Arizona’s law and similar legislation across the country.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
