Arizona’s Republican legislative leaders are wading into another legal fight.
Earlier this week, Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Ben Toma filed an amicus brief at the U.S. Supreme Court in City of Grants Pass v. Gloria Johnson and John Logan. According to the legislators, the case involves “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 has 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 assert 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 opined that “the Ninth Circuit decided it was better at making policy than elected state legislatures and city councils.” They argued that 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.”
President Petersen issued a statement in conjunction with his announcement, saying, “We’re talking about a humanitarian crisis that continues to spiral out of control in our state, thanks to bad court rulings, judicial overreach, and a litany of vetoes by the Governor. Lives and livelihoods are lost every single day that we continue to allow homeless encampments to grow in our communities. We must have clarity from the U.S. Supreme Court in order to holistically address the systemic issues contributing to homelessness, as well as the dire public safety and public health consequences created by allowing these encampments to remain. Once again, the Attorney General is absent, but the Speaker and I are committed to engaging for the betterment of Arizona.”
Senator John Kavanagh added, “Many of the street homeless population are seriously mentally ill, drug addicted or both. It is unconscionable that these vulnerable people are being allowed to live in squalid circumstances on the street where they may abuse drugs and become crime victims. This situation is a result of federal court rulings that some say prohibit the police from enforcing street camping bans even when shelter can be provided to the homeless person. It is imperative that the Supreme Court clarify lower court rulings, so that if homeless persons are offered shelter and refuse, they can be removed from the street by the police.”
One of Arizona’s newest legislators also weighed in on the issue and filing of the brief. Senator Shawnna Bolick said, “Homelessness is one of the top issues impacting Legislative District 2, putting law enforcement and private property owners into the direct fray due to the lack of leadership at Phoenix City Hall. My constituents want safe neighborhoods, not ones littered with used needles and drug paraphernalia often left overnight for their kids to encounter on the way to the bus stop to get to school. There are quite a few civil society groups stepping up, but it’s not enough. I hope the USSC does the right thing. Government exists for public safety, and Arizona’s Governor along with the Phoenix Mayor are failing their citizens.”
The General Counsel for the Arizona House Republicans, Linley Wilson, pointed to a recent post from California Governor Gavin Newsom about the issue of federal courts inserting caselaw 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
Another legal fight is brewing in the State of Arizona.
Last week, Senate President Warren Petersen announced that he had “given the greenlight for the Senate to file a lawsuit against the Biden administration for their unconstitutional land grab in Arizona.”
I've given the greenlight for the Senate to file a lawsuit against the Biden administration for their unconstitional land grab in Arizona.
The legislative leader followed up his newsworthy tweet with an in-depth press release on Monday, explaining his reasoning and plan of action for contesting the recent move from the White House. The release asserted that “the blatantly unconstitutional move of confiscating nearly a million acres of land within Coconino and Mohave Counties to designate as a ‘national monument’ is nothing more than a publicity stunt to appeal to his radical environmental base, while in tandem creating dire consequences for the livelihoods of our citizens, Arizona’s economy, as well as our nation’s energy supply.”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: President @votewarren Gives the Green Light for Arizona Senate to File Lawsuit Against Biden Administration for Unconstitutional Land Grab ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/5fwkuVVbww
In a statement, Petersen said, “Our nation as a whole is suffering under the incompetence of the Biden Administration, and I will not sit back while he issues another unlawful executive order harming Arizonans. It’s clear he has declared war on American energy production, as our citizens continue to feel the pain of $5 a gallon gas under his radical agenda. Now, he wants to cripple mining across the U.S. and further exacerbate our dependency on dangerous foreign nations for our energy supply, which will continue to drive up costs for taxpayers amid historic inflation.”
Petersen added, “Using the guise of creating a ‘Grand Canyon’ national monument in a remote area that is not even connected to the Grand Canyon is completely disingenuous. This move has nothing to do with protecting the Grand Canyon. It has everything to do with fulfilling his tyrannic desires to block responsible mining and agriculture production in an effort to cater to the extremists who elected him into office. I look forward to fighting on behalf of Arizona in court.”
The Senate President is “directing attorneys to identify all citizens, industries and local governments impacted by this gross overreach and to create a coalition to further examine the detrimental effects President Biden’s land grab is imposing on our state.” He shared that a “fact-finding phase is currently underway, with a goal of filing suit against the Biden Administration by the end of 2023 or early 2024.”
During his visit to Arizona last month, President Joe Biden established the Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni – Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument. In his signed proclamation, Biden wrote, “Protecting the areas to the northeast, northwest, and south of the Grand Canyon will preserve an important spiritual, cultural, prehistoric, and historic legacy; maintain a diverse array of natural and scientific resources; and help ensure that the prehistoric, historic, and scientific value of the areas endures for the benefit of all Americans.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Arizonans may have gained valuable insight into the future direction of their state – thanks to a surprising action from a neighboring state.
Last week, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham signed an Executive Order to declare a State of Public Health Emergency due to gun violence. According to the New Mexico Governor’s Office, Grisham’s action plan “includes a suspension of open and concealed carry laws in Bernalillo County, temporarily prohibiting the carrying of guns on public property with certain exceptions.”
Today, I signed an executive order declaring gun violence a public health emergency. To my fellow citizens: get loud. Step up. Demand change: from your neighbors, from your friends, from your communities, from your elected leaders. Enough is enough. More coming from me tomorrow. pic.twitter.com/jOt4fv4YDC
The move from the New Mexico Governor was met with both support and opposition, with even members of her own party taking issues with what or how the governor was using her executive powers in this situation.
While Grisham’s order was controversial enough, the Arizona House Democrats Caucus created news of its own by appearing to post an endorsement of the action.
Arizona Republicans currently hold slim majorities in both the state’s House and Senate chambers, but both political parties are vying for control of the Legislature in the next election. With a Democrat Governor at the helm of the state, a Democrat takeover of the state legislature would likely have serious repercussions from a policy standpoint, which would undoubtedly include some proposal or action against Second Amendment freedoms.
Republican Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell was quick to respond to the House Democrats’ post, vowing to see them in court if it ever came to that point on this issue of restricting Arizonans’ constitutional freedoms.
— County Attorney Rachel Mitchell (@Rachel1Mitchell) September 9, 2023
The General Counsel for the Arizona House Republicans, Linley Wilson, added, “Who’s going to tell them? Or maybe they already know that in addition to the AZ & U.S. constitutions, ARS 26-303(L) has been on the books in Arizona since 2007. Fun fact: the AZ House vote on SB 1258 to protect 2A rights during an ‘emergency’ was 55-0-5.”
Who’s going to tell them? Or maybe they already know that in addition to the AZ & U.S. constitutions, ARS 26-303(L) has been on the books in Arizona since 2007. Fun fact: the AZ House vote on SB 1258 to protect 2A rights during an “emergency” was 55-0-5. https://t.co/ZKcqj0C3UBpic.twitter.com/lnElXTaWv1
Jonathan Turley, a legal analyst and national columnist, opined on the latest from New Mexico, writing, “The order, in my view, is flagrantly unconstitutional under existing Second Amendment precedent. It could also be a calculated effort to evade a ruling by making the period of suspension so short. Many will of course celebrate the boldness of Grisham in taking away an individual right under a cleaver measure. It is, however, too cleaver by half. If not found moot at the end of the period, New Mexico could supply a vehicle to curtail future public health rationales.”
The order, in my view, is flagrantly unconstitutional under existing Second Amendment precedent. It could also be a calculated effort to evade a ruling by making the period of suspension so short…https://t.co/aURAa8Ict9
Arizona Senator Frank Carroll also weighed in on the New Mexico Governor’s decision, saying, “I’m appalled at what has transpired in the great state of New Mexico. Their radical Democrat Governor is setting a dangerous precedent by violating their law-abiding citizens’ constitutional right to protect themselves, their family, and their property against dangerous criminals. Every single American should be outraged at the reckless political agenda that continues to be forced by the Left to control you and undo the principles of freedom, liberty and democracy established by our nation’s Founding Fathers.”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: @RepFrankCarroll Condemns New Mexico's Ban on Guns, Vows to Protect Arizonans from Deliberate Violation of Constitutional Rights ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/VoVMjOyfAd
The state’s Senate President, Warren Petersen, made it abundantly clear that a Republican-led Legislature would not stand for such a measure from the governor, stating, “Criminals will be emboldened by the executive order issued by New Mexico’s governor. Law abiding citizens will be left unarmed as criminals ignore the law and paper executive orders. Takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. Takes good force to stop evil force.”
Criminals will be emboldened by the executive order issued by New Mexicos governor. Law abiding citizens will be left unarmed as criminals ignore the law and paper executive orders. Takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. Takes good force to stop evil force.
The people of Arizona deserve elections that are both accessible and secure—where it is easy to vote and hard to cheat. It is the duty of the legislature to pass bills that ensure this, the Governor to sign those bills into law, and the Attorney General to enforce those laws.
But the Secretary of State’s role is different. This elected official is supposed to provide an Elections Procedures Manual (EPM) that provides impartial direction to county recorders to ensure uniform and correct implementation of election law. But just like his predecessor in this role before him (now-Governor Katie Hobbs), our current Secretary of State Adrian Fontes has filled his EPM with unlawful provisions…
Higher education, ideally a bastion of free thought and inquiry, should eagerly embrace a multitude of voices and perspectives—we usually call that thinking and learning. Yet, in practice, the ubiquitous doctrines of inclusion inscribed into university charters are not without exceptions. These exceptions materialize from the judgments of self-appointed arbiters of speech, who wield the authority to classify ideas and individuals as hateful and unsafe as they break from a general orthodoxy of perspective. Disguised as protections of students from pernicious notions, these arbiters diligently strive to condemn, censor, and chill speech they do not like – while university leadership does nothing.
I experienced this exact condemnation when I orchestrated a university-sanctioned event in my capacity as the Executive Director of the T.W. Lewis Center for Personal Development at ASU’s Barrett Honors College. The event, titled “Health, Wealth, and Happiness,” took place at ASU Gammage Auditorium on February 8, 2023. Esteemed experts joined the panel, with Dr. Radha Gopalan, a distinguished heart transplant cardiologist, engaging on health; Robert Kiyosaki, expert on money and the acclaimed author of “Rich Dad Poor Dad,” delving into wealth; and Dennis Prager, co-founder of PragerU and, for over 40 years running, a nationally syndicated radio host, addressing happiness. Complementing the panelists were speakers Charlie Kirk, the visionary behind Turning Point USA, and Tom Lewis, a notable businessman, philanthropist, and namesake donor of the Lewis Center.
At Arizona State University (ASU), the culture of arbitration of speech has infiltrated deeply. This might come as a surprise given ASU’s acclaimed reputation for its free speech policies and its president’s commitment to this cause. In June, I published editorials in the Wall Street Journal“I Paid for Free Speech at Arizona State” and in the National Review, “Some Universities Care About Free Speech…Until They Don’t,” in which I revealed the free speech crisis at ASU’s Barrett Honors College while I also praised ASU for its free speech policies, at least as they state them on paper. I had hoped for a steadfast defense against blatant infringements on free speech that undermine ASU’s policies and declarations. Regrettably, my optimism faded. With each day, ASU’s actions, or lack thereof, erode my confidence in their stated defense of free speech.
It is imperative to grasp the suppression of speech in our academic institutions and to fully comprehend the essence of true freedom of thought which can only come from true freedom of speech. Only then can we embark on endeavors that genuinely promote the education and advancement of society.
ASU President Michael Crow may declare that “speakers speak at ASU,” but can we truly consider speech as free when over 80% of the faculty retaliates against speech they deem “wrong”? Do free speech ideals hold when deans prescribe limitations on speakers’ speech? Can we claim freedom of speech when marketing materials are removed due to faculty offense, while contrasting viewpoints bask in promotional spotlight? Is speech uninhibited when professors dedicate valuable class time to condemn the speech of other units? Does true free speech persist when professors discourage student participation in an event? And then stand vigilantly at the event entrance, watching attendees approach. Can we genuinely say that speech is free when college deans fire leaders and dismantle centers that uphold values no longer in harmony with the college’s leanings? The resounding answer is no. This is free speech under siege.
On August 3, 2023, a group of scholars who convened at Princeton established the “Princeton Principles for a Campus Culture of Free Inquiry.” This assembly distinctly underscores the pressing predicament faced by numerous higher education institutions that falter in upholding cultures of robust and uninhibited speech.
The Princeton Principles squarely confront this concern: “Some members of the university community argue that robust freedom of inquiry permits speech that can ‘harm’ students’ well-being or hinder institutional efforts to attain particular conceptions of social justice or ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion.’”
The case of the Lewis Center is illustrative, with 39 of the 47 Barrett Honors College faculty launching a nationwide condemnation campaign against the Health, Wealth, and Happiness program, speakers, donors, and staff. The Barrett deans actively endorsed this campaign and exercised censorship of speech the faculty found objectionable. The campaign led to intimidations and firings, which is to say prices to pay—sanctions—for exercising free inquiry and speech.
Having policies and ratings extolling free speech alone isn’t enough if university leadership doesn’t enforce their own standards. My experiences at ASU revealed a bureaucratic machinery that prioritizes safeguarding the institution’s interests over addressing free speech violations. I spent months reporting these violations internally and escalated the matter to ASU’s upper echelons and even testified in a legislative hearing. As of mid-August 2023, ASU and its board maintain that they have discovered “a series of examples of unfettered free speech,” aligning with the arbiters.
Self-governance alone proves inadequate in safeguarding our First Amendment rights on campus. The arbiters of speech are not likely to relinquish their control in the absence of decisive action by leadership. The responsibility rests upon parents, students, donors, the media, concerned citizens, and elected officials to unite and reestablish freedom of speech without fear of retribution, for there is no freedom of anything if it comes with a penalty for its exercise, including speech.
The Princeton Principles underscore that “If there is clear and convincing evidence that faculty members and administrators are not adequately fulfilling their responsibilities to foster and defend a culture of free inquiry on campus, other agents including regents, trustees, students, and alumni groups in the wider campus network may and indeed should become involved.”
Gratitude must be extended to parents, students, alumni, donors, lawmakers, and concerned citizens for following this story who rallied behind the cause of free speech. Special acknowledgment should be given to leaders like Arizona Senator Anthony Kern and State Representative Quang Nguyen for co-chairing the Joint Legislative Ad Hoc Committee on the Freedom of Expression at Arizona’s Public Universities. And sincere thanks should be extended to Arizona Speaker of the House Ben Toma and Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen for their unwavering support of free speech for all.
Despite receiving broad support, sustained vigilance is imperative. We must persist in recognizing speech suppression and holding university leadership accountable for defending the realm of free speech, even for ideas deemed offensive, such as, laughably, health, wealth, and happiness.
Ann Atkinson can be reached at her Twitter handle, @Ann_Atkinson_AZ.
