Puente, et al. v. Arizona State Legislature Historic Case

At a Glance

Date Filed: 

December 4, 2019

Current Status 

The Arizona Court of Appeals vacated the Superior Court's dismissal and remanded the case to proceed against the Arizona State Legislature on February 15, 2022, rejecting all arguments for dismissal. The Legislature appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, which vacated the Court of Appeals decision and affirmed the Superior Court dismissal on December 30, 2022.

Co-Counsel 

The People's Law Firm, PLC

Client(s) 

Puente
Mijente Support Committee
Jamil Naser, a lead organizer with the Arizona Palestine Solidarity Alliance
Jamaar Williams, a member of Black Lives Matter Phoenix Metro
Jacinta Gonzalez, senior organizer with Mijente Support Committee

Case Description 

Organizers and representatives of Arizona Palestine Solidarity Alliance (APSA), Black Lives Matter (BLM) Phoenix Metro, Mijente, Puente, and the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a lawsuit in Arizona state court against 26 Arizona lawmakers who attended the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) Nation and States Policy Summit in Scottsdale, Arizona. The groups claimed that the lawmakers, who together made up a quorum of several Arizona legislative committees, violated Arizona’s Open Meeting Law by meeting behind closed doors at the private ALEC gathering. A closed meeting of a quorum of an Arizona legislative committee where members debate, discuss, deliberate, or otherwise work is a violation of the Arizona Open Meeting Law.

The filing came after the Center for Constitutional Rights, Dream Defenders, Palestine Legal, The Red Nation, and the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights together released the report “ALEC Attacks: How evangelicals and corporations captured state lawmaking to safeguard white supremacy and corporate power,” which examines the harmful impact of ALEC laws on people of color.

ALEC is a ‘pay-to-play’ club for corporations and conservative political activists that pay ALEC membership fees in return for exclusive private access to state lawmakers. According to an ALEC “Business Plan” from 1996, “ALEC’s product is policy, and its customers are state legislators and private sector supporters.” ALEC boasts that approximately one-third of all state lawmakers in the U.S. are members. ALEC has a long legacy of supporting the development and adoption of infamous laws that have had significant impacts on people of color, such as Stand Your Ground laws, Voter ID laws, Right-to-Work laws, Critical Infrastructure laws, and anti-boycott laws that punish people and businesses that participate in First Amendment-protected boycotts in support of Palestinian rights.

At an ALEC meeting in 2009, exactly ten years prior to this lawsuit being filed, a forerunner to what would become Arizona’s infamous anti-immigrant law SB 1070 was introduced to the ALEC meeting by the state senator that would go on to be SB 1070’s lead sponsor, Russell Pearce. SB 1070 made it a state misdemeanor crime for a non-U.S. citizen to be in Arizona without carrying the required documents. The law effectively granted authority for law enforcement to racially profile and harass Latinx people, since it exclusively targeted undocumented people, for the benefit of ALEC members operating privately-run immigration detention centers.

In the lawsuit, APSA, BLM Phoenix Metro, Mijente, Puente, and the Center for Constitutional Rights alleged facts that raised a reasonable inference that the legislators were meeting in closed sessions, in violation of the law, for the purposes of developing laws. Those filing the lawsuit were seeking a ruling from the court that would have declared that the presence of a quorum of lawmakers at ALEC’s meeting was in violation of the Open Meeting Law.

Case Timeline

December 30, 2022
Arizona Supreme Court vacates Court of Appeals decision and affirms Superior Court dismissal
December 30, 2022
Arizona Supreme Court vacates Court of Appeals decision and affirms Superior Court dismissal
The Arizona Supreme Court decision affirms that the case raises a nonjusticiable political question.
November 15, 2022
Oral argument in Arizona Supreme Court
November 15, 2022
Oral argument in Arizona Supreme Court
March 16, 2022
Legislature appeals to Arizona Supreme Court
March 16, 2022
Legislature appeals to Arizona Supreme Court
The Legislature petitions the court for review on March 16, 2022, and we oppose the petition on May 16, 2022. The Arizona Supreme Court grants the petition for review on August 25, 2022 and orders supplemental briefing. The parties file their supplemental briefs on September 28, 2022. Oral argument is scheduled for November 15, 2022.
February 15, 2022
Arizona Court of Appeals reverses lower court dismissal
February 15, 2022
Arizona Court of Appeals reverses lower court dismissal
The decision affirms that the Legislature cannot exempt itself from its own Open Meeting Law, rejects all of the Legislature's arguments for dismissal, and remands the case to proceed in the Superior Court.
May 14, 2021
Appellate court briefing
May 14, 2021
Appellate court briefing
We file our appellate brief in the Arizona Court of Appeals on May 14, 2021, and the Legislature files its answering brief on July 7, 2021. We file our reply on July 27, 2021.
November 5, 2020
Judge Mikitish grants Legislature's motion to dismiss case under political question doctrine
November 5, 2020
Judge Mikitish grants Legislature's motion to dismiss case under political question doctrine
September 1, 2020
Oral argument on Legislature's motion to dismiss
September 1, 2020
Oral argument on Legislature's motion to dismiss
March 19, 2020
Arizona State Legislature moves to dismiss case
March 19, 2020
Arizona State Legislature moves to dismiss case
We file our response on May 4, 2020.
February 14, 2020
Judge grants motion for alternative service
February 14, 2020
Judge grants motion for alternative service
The Arizona legislature refuses to accept service of the complaint through three different means, arguing that it is a "non-jural entity" that cannot be sued - despite the fact that it has previously both sued and been sued. The judge grants our motion to serve the legislature by mail.
December 4, 2019
Complaint filed against Arizona State Legislature
December 4, 2019
Complaint filed against Arizona State Legislature