by Matthew Holloway | Dec 1, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has filed a motion in a federal appeals court to vacate a Biden-era rule on fine particulate matter air quality standards, which was set to affect air quality regulations in Arizona.
In the motion filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Department of Justice attorneys representing the EPA told the D.C. Circuit that the agency’s 2024 rule change on fine particulate pollution standards is both legally and scientifically flawed and must be vacated. The motion noted that the “supplement” to the EPA’s 2019 Assessment of the NAAQS, or National Ambient Air Quality Standards, for particulate matter, “did not represent [a] full multidisciplinary evaluation of evidence’ for the underlying air quality criteria.” It added that the agency “lacks statutory authority to revise standards absent a thorough review.”
The PM 2.5 rule, finalized on December 15, 2024, was purported to strengthen protections against fine particulate matter pollution, which the EPA stated was linked to respiratory and cardiovascular health risks. Implementation was set to begin in 2025, with full compliance deadlines extending to 2031. The final rule revising the NAAQS lowered the annual primary PM 2.5 standard from 12.0 micrograms per cubic meter to 9.0 micrograms per cubic meter. The rule also established a new 24-hour PM 2.5 standard of 35 micrograms per cubic meter. The rule remains in effect until the court comes to a decision.
The consolidated lawsuits involved petitioners including the Commonwealth of Kentucky, et al., the Arizona Legislature, and the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, along with 21 other states and business groups against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. The states and business groups challenged the rule, arguing it would impose billions in compliance costs on states like Arizona, potentially halting construction projects and job growth in areas struggling to meet the stricter standards.
The petitioners contended that the new limits would classify more areas as being in a state of nonattainment, leading to economic restrictions under the Clean Air Act. Oral arguments in the case were heard on December 16, 2024.
Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen hailed the EPA’s motion on X on November 26, 2025, crediting EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin with what he called a “BIG WIN FOR ARIZONA!” He added that the EPA, “just filed a motion in federal court to throw out Biden’s unlawful PM 2.5 rule that made it nearly impossible for parts of Arizona to ever meet clean-air standards — a rule that would have crushed jobs, construction, and our economy with billions in costs. The AZ Legislature & the AZ Chamber sued the Biden admin to stop this job-killing regulation. Our lawsuit helped bring about this reversal. Thank you, President Trump, for keeping your promise to cut red tape and protect Arizona families!”
Adam R.F. Gustafson, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and Sarah I. Zafar, Trial Attorney in the DOJ Environment and Natural Resources Division, filed the EPA’s motion for vacatur. They wrote in part, “Implementation of the NAAQS is a complex process, which generates significant costs and reliance interests among States, local governments, and regulated parties.”
The DOJ attorneys also argued that the EPA, “should at least have considered the distinct costs associated with revising the NAAQS mid-cycle. EPA’s disregard of this relevant factor was arbitrary and capricious because it was unreasonable for EPA to read an exercise of discretionary authority as an invitation to ignore a relevant factor like cost.”
The case remains ongoing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
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 | Nov 30, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Arizona Senate President and AG candidate Warren Petersen says that Democrat Attorney General Kris Mayes is overseeing a “culture of corruption,” pointing to a federal probe request and the arrest of a top aide as signs of a deepening crisis inside the Attorney General’s Office.
In a statement emailed by his campaign, Petersen said a “pattern of misconduct, corruption, and political weaponization” had taken root under Mayes and now represents “a betrayal of public trust” for Arizona families, law enforcement, and state institutions.
Petersen highlighted two recent developments: a formal request from U.S. Rep. Abe Hamadeh for a federal investigation into alleged bribery and prosecutorial misconduct and the arrest of Mayes’ state government division chief, Vanessa Hickman, on felony charges linked to stolen property.
Hamadeh Seeks Federal Probe Into Alleged ‘Pay-to-Play’ Scheme
Petersen’s statement leans heavily on a recent move by Congressman Abe Hamadeh (R-AZ08), who has asked the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate what he calls a “coordinated bribery and prosecutorial misconduct scheme” involving Mayes, the Democratic Attorneys General Association (DAGA), and the States United Democracy Center (SUDC).
In a detailed letter, Hamadeh pointed to court filings in the ongoing alternate electors prosecution and alleged that DAGA sent a total of $200,000 to Mayes’ political operation during key points in the case:
- $50,000 shortly after Mayes retained SUDC in May 2023
- $150,000 shortly after indictments were announced in April 2024
Hamadeh argued that the timing raises “significant concerns about quid pro quo arrangements,” and criticized what he described as an “unprecedented attorney-client relationship” between the Attorney General’s Office and SUDC, a politically aligned nonprofit tied to national Democratic legal networks.
“Many of the individuals involved in this scheme have engaged in highly questionable activity, and as I wrote in my letter to Attorney General Bondi, their rogue and unethical conduct is not isolated to Arizona,” Hamadeh said.
“As a former prosecutor, it is unimaginable to me that these officers of the court allegedly conspired to deny citizens their fundamental constitutional rights. Yet, it appears that is exactly what happened.”
The Department of Justice has not publicly indicated whether it will open a formal investigation, and Mayes’ office has not yet issued a direct response to Hamadeh’s allegations, according to recent coverage.
Mayes Division Chief Arrested on Felony Charges
The second case cited by Petersen is the arrest of Vanessa Hickman, who served as state government division chief under Mayes. Hickman was arrested last week by U.S. Postal Inspection Service agents and faces two felony counts of “controlling and trafficking stolen property” tied to a misdelivered package containing roughly $40,000 in jewelry, according to Phoenix New Times.
In a statement to the outlet, Mayes’s spokesman, Richie Taylor, said, “The allegations against Ms. Hickman are serious for any state employee, particularly someone in a leadership position.”
Hickman was placed on administrative leave after federal authorities notified the Attorney General’s Office of the investigation, and later resigned. However, she was still listed on the agency’s website as of this week, the Times reported.
Petersen argued that Hickman’s brush with the law was preceded by “serious allegations against Hickman—including fraud, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty.”
“Mayes’ office had been warned by the city of Peoria nearly two years earlier about serious allegations against Hickman—including fraud, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty—yet Mayes kept her in a position of authority,” the statement said.
Before joining Mayes’ team in January 2023, Hickman served as Peoria’s city attorney. The City of Peoria later sued Hickman over a six-figure severance, accusing her of unjust enrichment linked to a $139,000 payout the city says she wasn’t entitled to, according to the Arizona Republic.
According to an Arizona Daily Independent report, Peoria Mayor Jason Beck sent a letter to Mayes in March warning about those allegations and urging the Attorney General to investigate. Mayes declined the request and dismissed it as a “political stunt.”
“These incidents are not accidents,” Petersen said of both the Hamadeh complaint and Hickman’s arrest. “They are the direct result of failed leadership and a culture of corruption that Kris Mayes has allowed to take root in the Attorney General’s Office.”
Hickman has previously pushed back on Peoria’s claims. She filed a defamation countersuit against city officials over their communications with Mayes’ office, which was dismissed by a Maricopa County Superior Court judge on Jan. 7, according to court records and local reporting per AZCentral.
The current criminal case against Hickman has been submitted to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office for a charging decision. However, county prosecutors said they had not yet received it as of last week, according to Phoenix New Times.
“I will restore honesty, transparency, and integrity,” Petersen said in his release. “I will rebuild trust with law enforcement and put the full weight of the Attorney General’s Office back where it belongs—behind the safety, security, and rights of Arizona families. This race is about defending every neighborhood, rural community, border town, and law-abiding Arizonan.”
On his campaign site, Petersen frames his bid as an effort to “restore trust to Arizona’s Attorney General Office” and to enforce the law “as written—not based on politics or personal opinion,” emphasizing backing for law enforcement, crime-victim rights, and protecting Arizona’s sovereignty against “unconstitutional mandates, burdensome regulations, and attacks on our rights.”
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 | Nov 14, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Arizona’s top elected leaders — Democrats and Republicans alike — have joined forces to demand federal action after the seven Colorado River Basin states missed a critical deadline to finalize post-2026 water-sharing rules. In a letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, they warned that refusal by upper basin states to commit to verifiable conservation has pushed the negotiations to a breaking point.
The letter, dated November 11, 2025, highlights Arizona’s role as a leader in water conservation and criticizes upper basin states for refusing to commit to verifiable reductions, which the signatories say have stalled a seven-state agreement needed to sustain the river amid ongoing droughts.
The seven Colorado River Basin states—four in the upper basin (Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, New Mexico) and three in the lower basin (Arizona, California, Nevada)—missed a federal deadline on November 11th to submit a consensus plan for sharing water shortages after 2026, when current operating guidelines expire. Federal officials, including the Bureau of Reclamation, have urged the states to reach an accord to avoid potential court intervention or unilateral action by the Trump administration.
In the letter, the Arizona leaders commended Burgum’s efforts over the past year to develop a framework preserving the century-old 1922 Colorado River Compact, which allocates water among the states. They emphasized the river’s critical role in fueling Arizona’s advanced technology ecosystem, world-class agriculture, military bases, and communities home to millions, including 22 of the basin’s 30 Native American tribes.
“Arizona’s cutting-edge semiconductor industries and IT infrastructure are making it possible for the onshoring of manufacturing operations that are critical for maintaining American technological leadership,” the letter states. It notes that Yuma County, one of the world’s most sophisticated agricultural regions, produces over 90% of the winter leafy greens supplied to the United States and Canada each year.
The signatories stressed that Arizona’s allocation is vital not only to the state’s citizens but to national economic growth and independence. They warned that the upper basin states’ refusal to offer “meaningful, verifiable conservation commitments” over the last two years risks these foundations of growth.
Arizona has positioned itself as a basin-wide leader in water efficiency, the letter asserts, partnering with California and Nevada to propose creative and significant post-2026 operating criteria. Under most scenarios, Arizona’s plans would conserve 1.5 million acre-feet of water per year, representing more than 27% of the state’s entitlement in most years. This follows more than 3 million acre-feet in efficiencies already offered by the lower basin states since 2023 to stabilize Lakes Mead and Powell.
In contrast, the letter points out that upper basin states have repeatedly refused to implement any volume of binding, verifiable upper basin reductions. “This extreme negotiating posture—four of the seven Basin States refusing to participate in any sharing of water shortages—has led to a fundamental impasse that is preventing successful development of a 7-State consensus plan for management of the Colorado River,” it reads.
The group urged Burgum to use his authority to ensure that any alternative considered by the Department of the Interior “contains measurable and enforceable conservation requirements” for the upper basin, guaranteeing the resource remains available for Arizona’s contributions to the economy and national security.
Signatories to the letter include Governor Katie Hobbs (D), Senate President Warren Petersen (R-LD14), House Speaker Steve Montenegro (R-LD29), Senate Democratic Leader Priya Sundareshan (D-LD18), and House Democratic Leader Oscar De Los Santos (D-LD11).
A joint statement from the seven states and federal officials acknowledged the missed deadline. Still, it affirmed a shared recognition of the basin’s challenges, with negotiators committing to continuing talks despite the setback. Lake Mead’s surface elevation stood at 1,057 feet as of recent measurements, with commenters noting that’s just 37 feet above levels that could trigger a “devastating” crisis for Arizona, including potential mandatory cuts to urban and agricultural users.
The full text of the letter is available here.
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 | Nov 12, 2025 | News
By Jonathan Eberle |
A federal court has upheld Arizona’s sex offender registration requirements, marking a significant legal win for state lawmakers who intervened to defend the statutes after Attorney General Kris Mayes declined to do so.
In Doe v. Sheridan, plaintiffs sought to overturn Arizona’s lifetime registration and reporting rules for certain convicted sex offenders. The lawsuit challenged requirements that mandate lifetime inclusion on the state’s sex offender registry, reporting of residential changes, and disclosure of online identifiers. Critics of the law argued the measures were overly burdensome and unconstitutional.
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes did not defend the state’s position in the case, prompting Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Steve Montenegro to step in on behalf of the legislature. They argued the laws are essential for transparency and community safety.
U.S. District Judge Stephen McNamee ruled last week to uphold the statutes, finding the state’s registration and monitoring system constitutional. Petersen said the ruling reinforces key safeguards for families.
“When the Attorney General didn’t defend Arizona’s public safety laws, we refused to allow the safety of our children to be jeopardized,” Petersen said in a statement. “This ruling makes clear that tracking convicted sex offenders is not only constitutional – it is necessary to protect families and prevent new victimization.”
Under the ruling, Arizona will continue to require lifetime registration for qualifying sex offenders; require prompt reporting of address and online identity changes; and maintain public tools that allow law enforcement and families to monitor registered offenders.
Petersen called the outcome “a victory for every parent in Arizona,” adding that legislative leaders will continue to act to protect communities when others decline to defend state law.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Matthew Holloway | Nov 11, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Arizona GOP leaders are in court defending three abortion restrictions they say protect women and deter coercion after Attorney General Kris Mayes declined to defend the state laws. The Plaintiffs, supported by the Center for Reproductive Rights, argue that the statutes defy the 2024 constitutional amendment legalizing abortion up to fetal viability.
The lawsuit, Isaacson v. Arizona, was filed in May 2025 by Phoenix obstetrician-gynecologist Dr. Paul Isaacson, a Proposition 139 supporter. Isaacson was joined by Dr. William Richardson and the Arizona Medical Association in the lawsuit, which challenges:
- A “reason ban” barring abortions based solely on fetal abnormalities (non-lethal or otherwise), gender, or race.
- A “two-visit requirement” requiring a second clinic visit and 24-hour delay after viewing an ultrasound.
- A telehealth ban prohibiting diagnosis, prescription, or mailing of abortion medication via phone or video.
Isaacson dropped a related federal case in April 2025 to advance this state challenge and was joined by the Arizona Medical Association and two other OB-GYNs.
Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Steve Montenegro intervened to defend the laws, represented by attorney Emily Gould of Holtzman Vogel, after AG Kris Mayes declined to defend them, according to KJZZ. In June 2023, Governor Hobbs signed an executive order centralizing abortion-related prosecutions in the Attorney General’s office, a move Mayes said underscores their shared commitment to “fight … to protect the rights of Arizonans to make their own private medical decisions without interference.”
The case is before Judge Greg Como in Maricopa County Superior Court, who denied a motion for dismissal from Petersen and Montenegro, and ordered a three-day evidentiary hearing to explore the laws’ impact on abortion in Arizona.
Defendants’ witness, Phoenix OB-GYN Dr. Steven Nelson—who manages miscarriage care but has not performed abortions—backed the telehealth ban, stressing in-person exams detect coercion via nonverbal cues like facial expressions in trafficking scenarios. Gould, representing Petersen and Montenegro, cited American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists data and argued that at least 10% of abortion patients later report coercion. Nelson urged limiting telehealth to emergencies, as it “prohibits all of this,” and said he would provide such services only in the most dire cases.
Plaintiffs’ Wednesday witnesses—including Isaacson and experts from the Center for Reproductive Rights and ACLU—argued the laws burden low-income and rural patients with over two-hour drives and confidentiality risks in abusive settings. They argued that pre-abortion ultrasounds are unnecessary for early dating with reliable menstrual tracking. Experts clashed on the 24-hour delay’s health value, with one testifying that it undermines women’s autonomy and timely care.
Isaacson claimed the restrictions “create unnecessary barriers to essential reproductive health care,” echoing concerns from the Arizona Medical Association about access for vulnerable groups.
On ultrasounds, Nelson countered these arguments and described them as “essential to dating” pregnancies, estimating 60% of patients misjudge gestational age due to implantation bleeding. He noted ultrasounds pinpoint asymptomatic ectopic pregnancies, often undetected until seven weeks, requiring specific interventions. Nelson suggested local physicians could handle initial visits to ease rural travel burdens.
On day two of the hearing on Thursday, Judge Como indicated he may treat the record as sufficient for a permanent injunction, with closing arguments pending, according to Courthouse News. The hearing was set to continue on Friday, but as of Monday, no additional information was publicly available regarding the case.
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.
