1. Which of the following Justices from the U.S. Supreme Court most reflects your judicial philosophy?
−
2. Please rate your judicial philosophy on a scale of 1 to 10, with "strict constructionism"1 being a "1" and "noninterpretivism" being a "10."
−
3. Please state if you AGREE or DISAGREE with the following statement from Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts: "Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire."
−
4. Please rate your agreement with the reasoning in this statement from the U.S. Supreme Court on a scale of 1 to 10 with a "1" for strongly agree to a "10" for strongly disagree: "These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."
−
5. Please rate your agreement with this statement from former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall on a scale of 1 to 10 with a "1" for strongly agree to a "10" for strongly disagree: "Judicial power, as contradistinguished from the power of the laws, has no existence. Courts are the mere instruments of the law, and can will nothing. When they are said to exercise a discretion, it is a mere legal discretion, a discretion to be exercised in discerning the course prescribed by law; and, when that is discerned, it is the duty of the Court to follow it. Judicial power is never exercised for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the Judge; always for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the Legislature; or, in other words, to the will of the law."
−
Judicial Decisions
PIMA COUNTY et al v STATE OF ARIZONA et al
Case Number: CV-21-0213-PRQuestion Presented: Whether the State must reimburse Pima County for desegregation expenses that exceed the Arizona Constitution’s 1% Limit on residential property taxes as “additional state aid for Education.”Decision: The funding allocations for desegregation expenses authorized by § 15-910(G)–(L) are not “primary property taxes” and desegregation expenses are not included in the law’s calculations, which only reimburse primary property taxes, so the State is not required to reimburse desegregation expenses that otherwise would exceed the 1% Limit as additional state aid for education. Judge Position: Joined in the 7/0 decision.
AMY SILVERMAN, et al. v ADES
Case Number: CV-23-0181-PRQuestion Presented: Whether investigative journalists can engage in “bona fide research” and gain access to otherwise protected records maintained by the Arizona Department of Economic Security concerning abuse, exploitation, or neglect of vulnerable adults.Decision: Yes, they can. The Court defines “bona fide research” and provides guidance concerning ADES’s exercise of discretion in deciding whether and in what manner to release records under the “bona fide research” exception. Judge Position: Joined in the 7/0 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v MANUEL DAVID PEREZ-GUTIERREZ
Case Number: CR-23-0137-PRQuestion Presented: Whether an unobjected-to violation of A.R.S. § 13-711(A)—which requires courts to explain certain sentencing decisions on the record—is amenable to: (1) fundamental-error review, (2) structural-error review, or (3) the limited-remand practice.Decision: Because violations of § 13-711(A) are like administrative errors that a trial court can correct without affecting the disposition, a remand for the limited purpose of statutory compliance is appropriate. Judge Position: Joined in the 7/0 decision.
PLANNED PARENTHOOD et al v KRISTIN MAYES/HAZELRIGG
Case Number: CV-23-0005-PRQuestion Presented: Whether the Arizona Legislature repealed or otherwise restricted the pre-Roe abortion ban (A.R.S. § 13-3603) by passing the 15 weeks law (prohibiting physicians from performing elective abortions after fifteen weeks’ gestation). Decision: The 15 weeks law does not create a right to an abortion that repeals or restricts the pre-Roe law. The pre-Roe law is enforceable.Judge Position: Joined in the 4/2 decision. Summary of Dissent or Concurrence: Dissent by J. Timmer joined by J. Brutinel: The two laws should be harmonized to allow physicians to perform abortions before fifteen-weeks’ gestation or when necessary to preserve the pregnant woman’s health.
CAO et al. v PFP DORSEY et al.
Case Number: CV-22-0228-PRQuestion Presented: Whether the forced sale of a condo unit violated the eminant domain provision of the Arizona Constitution or the Arizona Condominium Act.Decision: The Arizona Condominium Act does not violate the eminent domain provision of the Arizona Constitution as applied to the appellants because the condominium declaration to which they agreed included the Act and allowed for the partition of the property upon dissolution. However, the Condominium Act required the sale of all property, rather than individual units.Judge Position: Joined in the 7/1 decision.
AVITIA v CRISIS PREPARATION
Case Number: CV-22-0288-PRQuestion Presented: Whether mental health professionals have a statutory or common law duty to third parties for harm caused by a patient under their care.Decision: The legal duty to report child abuse or neglect does not include reporting a risk of future harm. Mental health professionals owe a duty to third parties based not on foreseeability of harm, but on their special relationship and public policy, overruling prior decisions.Judge Position: Joined in the 6/1 decision in which J. Timmer joined in part and dissented in part and wrote a separate opinion.Summary of Dissent or Concurrence: Concurrence and dissent in part by J. Timmer: The statutory duty to report child abuse or neglect does not include reporting a risk of future harm. However, the common law duty to warn and protect forseeable victims should not be overruled and the court should not have addressed the anti-abrorgation issue because neither party raised or argued it below.
ROBERT WALLACE v HON. JAMES D. SMITH/CRUZ et al
Case Number: CV-22-0143-SAQuestion Presented: "Whether an Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure instructing courts to include “damages, costs, attorney’s fees, and prejudgment interest” when setting the amount of an appeal bond superceeds a state law instructing courts to only include damages."Decision: The Court resolved the conflict of law in favor of the Rule because determining the amount of the bond is a procedural matter within the purview of the judicial branch under the Arizona Constitution. Judge Position: Joined in the 7/0 decision.Summary of Dissent or Concurrence: Concurrence by J. Bolick: He fully agrees with the majority and writse to respond to the dissent who "would subordinate our express separation of powers to an overly expansive view of the judiciary’s implied powers." Dissent by J. Timmer: Constitutional protection for actions has evolved since statehood and the majority opinion ignores stare decisis and weakens the anti-abrogation clause's open court access guarantee.
STATE v HONS. BREARCLIFFE/VASQUEZ et al
Case Number: CV-21-0174-SAQuestion Presented: What safeguards must be provided to a defendant before losing the right to appeal due to absence during sentencing following the defendant's conviction?Decision: The Court held that "(1) the defendant must receive notice that the right may be waived if his or her absence prevents sentencing from occurring within ninety days after conviction; (2) the waiver must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; and (3) the defendant must be provided an opportunity at sentencing to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the absence was involuntary."Judge Position: Joined in the 7/0 decision.
TIMOTHY MATTHEWS v ICA/CITY OF TUCSON/TRISTAR
Case Number: CV-21-0192-PRQuestion Presented: Whether A.R.S. § 23-1043.01(B), which limits workers’ compensation claims for mental illnesses to those that arise from an “unexpected, unusual or extraordinary stress” situation, violates article 18, section 8 of the Arizona Constitution or the equal protection guarantee of article 2, section 13.Decision: "Section 23-1043.01(B), which has governed compensation of stress-related workplace injuries for more than four decades, does not unconstitutionally limit recovery for such injuries."Judge Position: Joined in the 6/1 decision in which J. Timmer joined in part and dissented in part and wrote a separate opinion.Summary of Dissent or Concurrence: Concurrence and dissent in part by J. Timmer: The law at issue does not violate the equal protection but it does violate article 18, section 8 of the Arizona Constitution.
LEIBSOHN et al v HOBBS/VOTERS RIGHT TO KNOW
Case Number: CV220204AP/ELQuestion Presented: Whether signatures collected by some initiative petition circulators must be disqualified because those circulators failed to strictly comply with two statutory registration requirements.Decision: While the circulators technically failed to strictly comply with one state law, the Secretary of State's registration process precluded them from complying and striking the signatures would “unreasonably hinder or restrict” the constitutional right to engage in the initiative process. Judge Position: Joined in the 7/0 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v SAMMANTHA LUCILLE REBECCA ALLEN
Case Number: CR-17-0368-APQuestion Presented: Whether a state law, which sets forth an abuse of discretion standard for capital sentences, is "cruel and unusual punishment" in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Decision: Convictions and sentences including the death penalty affirmed except for Count 4 which is vacated and remanded to the trial court for resentencing on that count. Judge Position: Joined in the 7/0 decision.
MORGAN/NEFF v HONS. DICKERSON/CARDINAL/STATE
Case Number: CV-21-0198-PRQuestion Presented: Whether the First Amendment of the US Constitution gives the public a right of access to jurors’ names during jury selection.Decision: The First Amendment permits court to refer to potential jurors by numbers, not names, during jury selection and the trial.Judge Position: Joined in the 7/0 decision and authored a concurring opinion.Summary of Dissent or Concurrence: Concurrence by J. Bolick: Arizona's Constitution contains a privacy clause that also protects juror privacy.
SOUTH POINT ENERGY CENTER LLC v ADOR et al
Case Number: CV-21-0130-PRQuestion Presented: Whether the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 expressly preempts Mohave County’s property tax on a power plant owned by non-Indian lessees of federal land held in trust for the benefit of an Indian tribe.Decision: The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 does not expressly preempt the application of Arizona Constitution, article 9, § 2(13), and A.R.S. § 42-11002, which authorizes Mohave County to tax a non-Indian lessee’s improvements built on leased Indian reservation land. Judge Position: Joined in the 7/0 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v KENNETH WAYNE THOMPSON II
Case Date: 01/19/2022Case Number: CR-19-0141-APQuestion Presented: Whether judgements and sentences from a murder trial were made in error including whether the imposition of the death penalty under Arizona’s sentencing statute for felony murder violated defendant’s due process rights under the Fifth Amendment and article 2, section 4 of the Arizona Constitution and his rights under the Eighth Amendment and article 2, section 15 of the Arizona Constitution.Decision: The Court found defendant’s Constitutional rights were not violated and affirmed his convictions and sentences. Judge Position: Joined in the 7/0 decision.
