Center Square News

(The Center Square) - A new bill seeking to require an English proficiency test for people applying for a commercial driver license would “likely have minimal direct impact” on Arizona’s trucking industry, according to Tony Bradley, the CEO of the Arizona Trucking Association.

He added that as currently written, House Bill 2443 “may conflict with existing federal CDL standards, which could create compliance concerns or risk federal funding in the future.”

“Arizona must remain in conformity with federal commercial driver license (CDL) standards to avoid jeopardizing federal highway funding or program certification,” Bradley said, answering The Center Square's questions by email.

HB 2443 would require CDL applicants to take an English proficiency exam in reading, speaking, writing and listening.

Bradley said the bill “addresses an area already covered under existing federal law.”

“English language proficiency has long been a federal driver qualification requirement,” the CEO added.

And Arizona “already operates under the federal CDL framework,” Bradley explained.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said nearly 10,000 CDL drivers were taken off the road last year after failing English proficiency checks.

Bradley said Arizona saw 663 violations of federal law that require a “driver be able to read and speak English sufficiently to converse with the general public, understand highway traffic signs and signals, respond to official inquiries, and make entries on reports and records.”

The CEO noted this represented “approximately 1.21% of all violations and 4.68% of out-of-service violations.”

Bradley said another 686 violations of the federal law occurred in the border commercial zone, which represented 1.26% of violations. The border commercial zone extends up to 75 miles into Arizona from the southern border.

In 2026, there have been 56 violations and 33 in the border commercial zone, Bradley noted.

“While not widespread, the issue is measurable and documented. To the best of my knowledge, we do not know how many of these violations were from Arizona drivers,” he explained.

Last week, the Department of Transportation announced that CDL tests will be conducted in English.

The Arizona Trucking Association supports “the concept of a standardized English language proficiency assessment” at the federal level, Bradley said.

He added that “English language proficiency requirements have existed in federal motor carrier regulations since the 1930s.”

“The purpose is straightforward: Drivers operating large commercial vehicles must be able to understand traffic control devices, emergency instructions, roadside inspections and safety communications,” Bradley explained.

Rather than Arizona creating new standards at the state level, the CEO told The Center Square that the most effective approach is to create a “uniform federal proficiency assessment at the time a CDL is issued.”

“Ensuring that drivers demonstrate English proficiency before licensure would provide clarity, consistency and fairness nationwide,” Bradley said.

At the federal level, Bradley said his organization supports standards that include “proficiency requirements for the written exam, English comprehension testing during the skills exam, road sign recognition and understanding and verbal communication assessment.”

(The Center Square) - Thousands of people are expected Saturday for the Arizona March for Life in Phoenix.

The pro-life march will begin at noon, following pre-march events at 10 a.m. The rally's primary sponsor and organizer is the Arizona Life Coalition.

The rally will feature speeches by Center for Arizona Policy President Peter Gentala and Dr. William Lile, a pro-life physician. The event will also include a musical performance by McKenna Faith, who was a contestant on "American Idol."

Garrett Riley, part-time executive director of Arizona Life Coalition, estimated the rally will have between 4,000 and 5,000 people, a similar crowd size to previous years.

Riley told The Center Square that the informative event will feature 25 exhibitors, including some from pregnancy health centers and foster care, as well as adoption and social agencies.

“It's gonna be very entertaining, uplifting and encouraging for anyone who is pro-life,” he explained.

Riley also recommended that people who may not consider themselves pro-life come to the rally with an “open mind and open heart” and talk with people there.

He added that his organization is “focused on influencing the hearts and minds of the culture.”

Riley said his organization sees abortion from a “moral and religious perspective” rather than a political perspective.

The Arizona March for Life is not a political rally, he said. He also noted his organization has been preparing for the event for the last six months.

The March for Life comes as debates continue over abortion laws. In 2024, Arizona voters passed Proposition 139, which guaranteed a right to abortion in the state Constitution.

Based on this new constitutional guarantee, an Arizona judge earlier this month ruled several state abortion laws were unconstitutional, such as Arizona’s reason ban, two-trip requirement law and telemedicine ban.

“The state’s interest in protecting potential life is not a legitimate justification for a law that interferes with a woman’s right to seek a pre-viability abortion,” Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Gregory Como wrote in his decision.

Dr. Misha Pangasa, an OB/GYN at Planned Parenthood Arizona, said the organization believes “everyone deserves compassionate, judgement-free care. It’s the center of our ethos.”

She added that “Arizonans have a right to comprehensive reproductive health care and education.”

“While sometimes voices of opposition filled with rage and judgement can feel loud, we must center ourselves in the truth: In Arizona, we are actively expanding access to reproductive care,” Pangasa said, answering The Center Square's questions by email.

“From voters overwhelmingly passing Prop. 139 and enshrining the right to abortion in our state constitution, to a state court earlier this month striking down several harmful, burdensome, and medically-unnecessary abortion restrictions, Arizona is moving health care forward,” she noted.

According to Riley, Arizona’s pro-life community is “undeterred by these political and legal outcomes.”

“The movement is even more dedicated and determined than ever to promote and defend innocent life and the rights of unborn children,” Riley said.

“No matter what the laws are, we believe abortion is always wrong,” he added.

Riley said his organization believes “pro-life is pro-family.”

“We have to double down on that because the law and the politics are not in our favor,” he said.

Sue Liebel, director of state affairs for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, told The Center Square that nearly 13,000 babies were aborted in Arizona in 2024.

Other states have passed constitutional amendments similar to Arizona's. Liebel said legislators in such states will attempt to remove health and safety regulations surrounding abortion.

Liebel added that Arizona may see in the future an attempt to start paying for abortion with state taxpayer money.

“People need to get out and say even though this unfortunate amendment passed, we still expect that in Arizona we’ll try to save as many lives as possible,” Liebel stated.

Pro-life supporters in Arizona can continue to “petition the courts, legislature, governor [and] health department to maintain the medical safeguards [and] standards we expect in today’s modern medical marketplace,” she said.

Liebel also noted Arizona pro-life supporters can launch campaigns to inform women that the “abortion industry does not have their back.”

She encouraged pro-life Arizonans to come out and support the March for Life.

“This may not be over,” Liebel said, adding that the pro-life movement “needs to be ready” when the opportunity presents itself, especially when women need medical care after failed or incomplete abortions.

(The Center Square) - Republican candidate Karrin Taylor Robson dropping out of the Arizona gubernatorial race benefits U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, more than U.S. Rep. David Schweikert, R-Scottsdale, according to Mike Noble, CEO of Noble Predictive Insights.

Earlier this month, Taylor Robson announced she would suspend her gubernatorial campaign.

She called the decision “not an easy one” and said she “would do anything to protect [Arizona] from the growing radicalism of the left.”

“We cannot afford a divisive Republican primary that drains resources and turns into months of intraparty attacks. It only weakens our conservative cause and gives the left exactly what they want: a fractured Republican Party heading into November,” Taylor Robson stated.

“With so much on the line in 2026, I am not willing to contribute to that outcome,” she added.

The Republican and Democratic primaries for the gubernatorial race will take place July 21. Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs is running unopposed in the primary. The winner of the GOP primary will face Hobbs in the Nov. 3 general election.

As to why Biggs is in a better position than Schweikert, Noble noted Biggs has the endorsement of President Donald Trump.

Trump had previously endorsed both Taylor Robson and Biggs for the Arizona gubernatorial race.

Noble noted Trump’s brand is “very popular” with the Arizona Republican Party.

When Taylor Robson was still in the race, there was “no statistical difference” among the three candidates in going up against Hobbs in a general election, Noble said.

However, based on polling data, Noble said Hobbs is in a “pretty good spot.”

“She has the advantage right now,” Noble told The Center Square.

Hobbs has the upper hand over the Republican gubernatorial candidates because she doesn’t have to face any primary challengers, Noble said.

The governor announced in January that she had raised nearly $15 million for her gubernatorial campaign.

Noble said there is a “huge enthusiasm gap between Democrats and Republicans” nationwide, citing special elections in which Democrats have been outperforming their 2024 numbers by about 13 points.

“The momentum is definitely behind Democrats right now, “ he explained.

In Taylor Robson’s announcement, she told her supporters to “stay engaged, stay involved, and stay focused on the mission ahead.”

“Arizona is worth fighting for, and this election will determine the direction of our state for years to come,” she explained.

Noble told The Center Square that it “was too early to tell” which candidate would receive the most support from Taylor Robson supporters, but he said it is “more likely” that Schweikert would receive their support rather than Biggs.

The last time a Republican faced Hobbs in a general election was Kari Lake in 2022, who lost the election by 17,117 votes.

Noble said Lake was popular among Arizona GOP voters but not among independent voters.

(The Center Square) – Agel Chan Ring, 19, and Nathan Da Ron James, 20, received prison sentences for the murder of a 17-year-old male in Phoenix.

Ring was sentenced to 22 years and James to 13 years.

Both pleaded guilty to one count of second-degree murder in the shooting death of the 17-year-old, who met with them to sell the defendants marijuana, according to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. At the time of the shooting, Ring was a prohibited possessor.

The office, which prosecuted the case, announced the sentences Thursday morning in a news release emailed to The Center Square.

Ring and James persuaded the victim to meet them for a marijuana purchase in July 2024 near 7th Avenue and Buckeye Road, according to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. When the victim retrieved the marijuana from his car, Ring shot him twice in the chest, the office said.

Ring and James went on to steal the marijuana, the victim’s phone and a gun, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office said.

Police arrested Ring near the crime scene. James fled to Kansas City, Mo. Months later, he was arrested there and extradited back to Arizona.

“We see cases like this far too often. Teenagers planning armed robberies over marijuana or vape products and senselessly murdering someone in the process,” said Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell. “Thanks to the dedicated work of the Phoenix Police Department and Drug Trafficking Prosecutor Sarah Lundstedt, these two individuals have been held accountable.”

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office said Ring and James were connected to the shooting through witness statements, cellphone records, social media videos and DNA evidence.

King County and Seattle were placed on a 2025 list of 500 “sanctuary jurisdictions” by the federal government for allegedly obstructing immigration enforcement.

Editor's note: This story has been updated since its original publication.

(The Center Square) - A new Arizona bill would require state and local police to notify federal law enforcement once an illegal immigrant is arrested.

Senate Bill 1055 is heading to the state House for consideration after the Senate passed it Tuesday by a vote of 16 to 11. The Republican majority backed the bill. No Democrats voted for it.

SB 1055 would also prevent state and local officials from limiting federal immigration law enforcement to “less than the full extent allowed by federal law.”

The bill allows an Arizona resident to bring legal action against a state or local jurisdiction that is hindering federal immigration law enforcement.

If a judge finds that a jurisdiction violates SB 1055, the court can impose a penalty of $500 to $5,000 per day until the violation ceases.

Also, the fine can be for the number of days the policy remains effective after a person files a lawsuit.

Sen. Wendy Rogers, R-Flagstaff, the sponsor of SB 1055, said the legislation “strengthens cooperation with federal authorities, gives law enforcement the tools they need, and ensures Arizona is not a sanctuary for cartel activity, fentanyl trafficking or human smuggling.”

“Border security is not a partisan issue," she said, answering The Center Square's questions by email. "It's a public safety responsibility, and this bill reflects that."

In Arizona, nine law enforcement agencies participate in the federal 287(g) program, which allows local law enforcement to carry out specific immigration enforcement duties.

According to Rogers, SB 1055 will strengthen “existing partnerships.”

“This is about coordination, transparency and clarity - not extra work,” Rogers said.

Under President Donald Trump, the number of illegal immigrants coming into Arizona have fallen dramatically from the number during former President Joe Biden’s tenure.

In fiscal year 2024, Arizona experienced 564,495 illegal immigrant encounters. Compared to fiscal year 2025, the state saw 66,452 illegal immigrant encounters. This represents an 88% decrease in encounters.

But Rogers expects Hobbs will likely oppose SB 1055 if it reaches her desk. Republicans hold majorities in both Arizona houses, but lack enough seats to override the Democratic governor's vetoes. In that case, the Republicans would need some Democratic votes to reach the two-thirds threshold. But as mentioned previously, no Democrats voted for SB 1055 in the Senate.

"The real question shouldn't be whether the Arizona legislature can override a veto or pursue a ballot referendum," Rogers said, answering The Center Square's question Thursday about procedures by email. "The question deserving an answer is this: WHY would the governor consider vetoing a bill that directly protects Arizona families from fentanyl, sex trafficking, drug trafficking, and dangerous criminals residing illegally in our state? THAT is the conversation Arizonans deserve; not a debate over procedural mechanics, but why commonsense public safety protections would be opposed at all."

“Border security should never be held hostage to political ideology," Rogers told The Center Square earlier this week. "The people of Arizona expect leadership, not obstruction. If the governor won't partner with federal authorities to protect our communities, the legislature will."

In addition to SB 1055, the state Senate passed two Rogers-sponsored bills aimed at increasing immigration enforcement.

SB 1520 mandates Arizona state agencies share immigration-related information when requested by the federal government.

SB 1421 prevents certain Arizona financial institutions from accepting specific forms of identification issued to illegal immigrants. Also, the bill says a person must confirm their lawful status before making certain foreign money transfers.

The Center Square reached out this week to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for comment, but did not get a response as of press time.

(The Center Square) - Members of Congress from the Southwest reacted along party lines to this year’s State of the Union.

President Donald Trump spent much of his Tuesday night speech talking about the economy, immigration, Iran, voter ID and crime. According to the president, America is safer today than it was when Joe Biden was in office.

U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colorado, disagreed with Trump's comments on various issues before the joint session of Congress.

“At the State of the Union, President Trump once again tried to convince us that what we have seen with our own eyes is not the truth,” Bennet told The Center Square Wednesday. “Coloradans have witnessed the reality: American citizens shot and killed in U.S. cities, families living in fear and struggling to afford health care and groceries, and small businesses fighting for survival under the weight of Trump's tariffs.”

As a result, Bennet said that he will continue to fight for truth and protect Colorado communities suffering under Trump’s “lawlessness.”

U.S. Rep Judy Chu, D-California, said on X that the State of the Union is meant to be unifying, not divisive.

“His speech was a disgraceful partisan spectacle, full of lies and non-stop attacks on his political enemies,” said Chu, whose district includes Pasadena.

U.S. Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nevada, disagreed with Trump’s statements that Americans are better off today than before he re-entered office. In a post on X, Rosen said life got more expensive for Nevada families during Trump’s first year back.

“Trump has weakened the state of our Union, and Nevadans need to hear him outline a real plan to actually address the affordability crisis,” said Rosen.

Some Democrats skipped the event, including U.S. Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Arizona.

Gallego instead went to an alternate event known as The People’s State Of The Union.

“Trump has made us sicker, poorer and less secure,” said Gallego in a speech at the alternate event.

Arizona's other U.S. senator - Mark Kelly - attended the president’s State of the Union. While the Democrat said in a press release that “Donald Trump mentioned a few things I agreed with, banning stock trading in Congress and stopping hedge funds from buying single-family homes,” Kelly criticized Trump for “handing a giant tax cut to rich people.”

U.S. Rep. Abe Hamadeh, R-Arizona, liked the address, especially the moments where Trump recognized military service members.

“As a member of the Armed Services committee in the U.S. House, I fought for E. Royce Williams to receive the Medal of Honor, so that was a particular highlight for me,” Hamadeh told The Center Square Wednesday.

Williams, a 100-year-old South Dakota native who lives today in San Diego, was honored for his actions as a Korean War fighter pilot.

As Hamadeh described it, the president's speech focused on America's victories and celebrated greatness and true heroism.

“From a mom waiting tables to some of the greatest athletes on earth, to warriors recovering from service to our country, American greatness was on full display and celebrated,” said Hamadeh.

Trump asked lawmakers to stand if they agreed government should protect Americans before illegal aliens. Democrats didn't stand, and Hamadeh said it will be long time, if ever, that Democrats will recover from that fact.

“I make every effort to work in a bipartisan way, but last night the Democrats made it very clear why that is almost impossible,” said Hamadeh. “I have to agree with President Trump. Most of them are crazy.”

U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Arizona, considered the State of the Union to be an incredible speech.

“The best ever,” said Biggs while shaking hands with Trump after the address ended.

(The Center Square) - Arizona Education Association’s new Empowerment Scholarship Account ballot initiative focuses on “reform, accountability and safety,” according to Geneva Fuentes, the teacher union’s communications director.

“ Our goal is to make sure that the voucher system does not continue to be a drain on Arizona's finances,” Fuentes told The Center Square.

Earlier this month, AEA, which is Arizona’s largest teacher union, and Save Our Schools Arizona, an organization that supports public schools, submitted the ballot measure. The initiative imposes an income cap and provides more oversight of ESAs. The measure will be on the Nov. 3 general election ballot if it gets approval from Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, and if supporters collect 383,923 signatures from registered voters.

Fuentes said the teacher's union is concerned that as voucher spending continues to increase, public school funding will be cut along with other services Arizona families rely upon.

”There is a real threat to the future of Arizona and to the government's ability to execute the priorities of the people of Arizona if this program is not reined in,” she said.

AEA’s ballot initiative proposes an income cap of $150,000. Fuentes said Arizona’s median income for a family of four is around $108,000.

The ballot initiative’s $150,000 cap is well above what the average family earns in Arizona, she added.

“ The average family would need to receive nearly a 40% immediate raise to surpass the income cap in the ballot initiative," Fuentes noted. "Our ballot initiative also includes an inflation adjustment over time, so as income levels rise with inflation, so too with the cap and the ballot initiative.”

The initiative has an income cap because the “focus of any program should be on helping folks who need help,” the communications director explained.

Katie Ratlief, the executive director of Common Sense Institute Arizona, previously told The Center Square that the average income of an Arizona family with two parents and kids at home was around $120,000.

She said the proposed income cap could remove approximately 15% of current ESA program participants.

Ratlief noted there are multiple ways to measure incomes, including the median and the mean.

Ratlief said CSI's research uses the mean or average income when “looking at and comparing income levels.”

The teachers’ union cited the median income, which is a different number, Ratlief explained. A median income is right in the middle, meaning half of the people earn more than that number.

According to Fuentes, the AEA’s ballot initiative would not make “substantial changes to [the ESA] system except for rooting out a lot of the waste, fraud and abuse that we've seen.”

The initiative is designed to “make sure bad actors are not taking advantage of this program to enrich themselves at the expense of our children,” she said.

Fuentes added that many ESA families “are buying items out of pocket and getting reimbursed.”

Families who are unable to make purchases out of pocket can make them through the Class Wallet Financial Management program’s marketplace, which would not change under the ballot initiative, she noted.

The marketplace is where ESA parents can buy educational-related supplies with their ESA funds.

Ratlief said parents who use the ESA’s reimbursement method may “be subject to long periods of waiting times to get reimbursed, which disproportionately hurts low-income families,” as well as vendors who aren’t on the marketplace. Some vendors did not want to participate at different points during the rollout of the universal program, she explained.

Fuentes said private schools, meanwhile, need to “either be accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting organization, and then if they’re not accredited, it [the initiative] would require them to administer assessments similar to those used for public school students.”

The ballot measure is an attempt to “make sure taxpayer dollars are going to legitimate academic institutions,” the communications director said.

Most Arizona Catholic schools, Christian schools and independent private schools will meet the accreditation standard and not have to worry about the assessment, Fuentes explained.

Most private schools seek accreditation from legitimate organizations because “it sends a message to the families that they’re seeking to attract that they are a reputable school that will provide a good education to students,” she noted.

The initiative is not an attempt to tell private schools how to “manage their student bodies,” Fuentes said.

Assessments play a factor for institutions that are not accredited, which Arizona “should step in and make sure [they] are actually providing legitimate education to the students that they purport to serve," she said.

Arizona’s ESA program, meanwhile, surpassed 100,000 participants this year, a 725% increase since 2022.

And CSI research shows Arizona public school enrollment hasn’t grown since 2008, Ratlief noted.

“I think it’s clear Arizonans expect they will have options when it comes to selecting the school that is right for their [children],” she said

When asked about the popularity of the ESA program, Fuentes said it has “never been popular in Arizona.”

Fuentes noted most Arizona students, including those with disabilities, attend public schools. She added that a decrease in public school enrollment can be attributed to “declining birth rates."

Another reason for fewer students is that Arizona underfunds its public schools, she told The Center Square.

“ Plenty of families and businesses choose not to come to Arizona because our state has made this conscious decision to not invest in the schools that the vast majority of students attend,” Fuentes explained.

While most students go to public schools, according to Ratlief, the “majority of students are also exercising school choice.”

She said this is being done in a variety of ways, including using ESA money to homeschool, attending a private school or charter school or going to a different public school via the open enrollment program.

Regarding the ballot initiative, Ratlief said, “It’s very important to ensure that voters understand the facts about the reality on the ground currently. That will be our focus.”

Editor's note: This story was updated Tuesday night to add a comment from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

(The Center Square) – The attorneys general of California and Arizona on Tuesday announced Democrats' multi-state lawsuit to block the Trump administration's overhaul of the childhood vaccine schedule.

Democratic officials are calling the federal action unlawful.

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said the suit names the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as defendants.

The suit goes after “HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the CDC over their needless, confusing, scientifically unfound and unlawful revision of America’s immunization schedule,” said Mayes during a virtual press conference with California Attorney General Rob Bonta.

“Let me be clear about what happened here," Mayes told reporters. "In January, an acting CDC director with no medical or scientific background signed off on a so-called decision memo that stripped seven critical vaccines of their recommended routine vaccination status in favor of an unwarranted shared clinical decision-making recommendation that is confusing for parents and providers alike and difficult for providers to implement.”

Jim O’Neill was made acting CDC director after the August firing of Susan Monarez.

O’Neill’s “Decision Memo” was announced Jan. 5. This followed a Dec. 5 memo from President Donald Trump that directed the leaders of HHS and CDC to review how other developed nations structure their childhood vaccination schedules and consider “the scientific evidence underlying those practices.” According to HHS, the leaders of the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services consulted with health ministries of peer nations, considered findings and later directed the CDC to move forward with implementation.

“The data support a more focused schedule that protects children from the most serious infectious diseases while improving clarity, adherence and public confidence,” said O’Neill in a January press release.

O’Neill has since been replaced by NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya.

In January, the CDC said it would continue to organize the childhood immunization schedule in three categories: recommended immunizations for all children, recommended immunizations for certain high-risk groups or populations, and immunizations based on shared clinical decision making.

The first category included shots for chickenpox, diphtheria, Haemophilus influenzae type B, human papillomavirus, measles, mumps, rubella, polio, pertussis, pneumococcal disease and tetanus.

Gone are recommendations for vaccines for the flu, hepatitis A and B, rotavirus, and RSV (respiratory syncytial virus).

Bonta said he was proud to be part of this lawsuit, adding that it's California's 59th suit against the Trump administration.

“HHS Secretary RFK Jr. and his CDC are flouting decades of scientific research, ignoring credible medical experts and threatening to strain state resources and make America’s children sicker,” said Bonta. “Their actions have been unconscionable, illogical and illegal.”

Examples offered by Bonta include Kennedy “blowing past appointment requirements” for the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, including that it be fairly balanced, and instead appointing “several anti-vaccine advocates and people without clear credentials” in immunization science.

The lawsuit is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The Center Square Tuesday contacted HHS, where spokesperson Richard Danker called the lawsuit a "publicity stunt."

"By law, the health secretary has clear authority to make determinations on the CDC immunization schedule and the composition of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices," said Danker, the assistant secretary for public affairs.

"The CDC immunization schedule reforms reflect common-sense public health policy shared by peer, developed countries," Danker said, answering The Center Square's question in an email Tuesday evening.

Earlier, HHS referred The Center Square to a previous statement that said the updated CDC childhood schedule “continues to protect children against serious diseases while aligning U.S. guidance with international norms.” HHS also claimed that many peer nations achieve high vaccination rates without mandates by relying on trust, education and strong doctor-patient relationships.

“HHS will work with states and clinicians to ensure families have clear, accurate information to make their own informed decisions,” said HHS.

With parties on both sides of the lawsuit pointing the finger at one another, The Center Square asked the Arizona Attorney General’s Office what people are supposed to think.

Richie Taylor, Mayes' spokesperson, said the recommendations being defended in this lawsuit are the product of decades of rigorous scientific research and peer review by thousands of independent experts.

“The public should trust the same evidence-based processes that eliminated polio, controlled measles until recently, and has protected public health for generations,” Taylor told The Center Square Tuesday. “The measles outbreaks now occurring across the country are an example of what happens when science is dismissed.”

In addition to those from California and Arizona, attorney generals involved in this lawsuit are Democrats from Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island and Wisconsin. Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania is also participating.

(The Center Square) - A new report showed that completing the building permit process in Arizona adds an average of 23 days to a building project.

Common Sense Institute Arizona released a brief analyzing permit data from the state’s 106 permitting jurisdictions.CSI examined nearly 3 million building permit records, said Glenn Farley, CSI’s director of policy and research.

The data doesn’t look at new building permits, but at improvement permits, such as permits to fix something on a property, Farley told The Center Square.

The brief stated for every extra day it takes people to obtain a permit, it adds another four days to the project.

The fastest 25% of jurisdictions completed the permit process in five days; whereas, the slowest ones took more than 16 days, the brief explained.

According to the brief, the state has different permitting standards for people depending on the jurisdiction in which they live.

Arizona has “tremendous variance” in permitting requirements, Farley said.

He added that this leads Arizona jurisdictions to have different standards for details such as who must obtain a permit, how long it takes to obtain a permit and the cost.

The brief noted almost 50% of Arizonans are not required to have a permit for replacements for heating, ventilation and air conditioning; roofs or water heaters.

The variance “speaks to the opportunity for policymakers at the state Legislature to improve things by setting some standards and establishing some consistency across” the state’s permit-issuing jurisdictions, Farley said.

He noted rural counties tended to be slower than urban counties in administering permits.

The brief stated 65% of these jurisdictions cover less than 0.5% of the state’s population.

According to Farley, this is not surprising because urban jurisdictions may have more staff and a larger budget to handle permit requests.

One urban area where this does not apply is Pima County, where the brief showed getting permits and completing building projects have tripled in the last 20 years.

Depending on the jurisdiction Arizonans live in, permit fees can range from $200 to over $600, the brief said.

”There's a correlation between how long it takes to get a permit and how long it takes to complete a project," Farley said. "If it takes longer to get a permit, it's gonna take you longer to complete a project."

The extra days caused by the permitting process affect builders, contractors, property owners, and cities and towns, Farley said.

(The Center Square) - A Catholic nonprofit has come out against an Arizona bill that would permit a firing squad to be used as an option for carrying out the death penalty.

State Sen. Kevin Payne, R-Peoria, introduced Senate Bill 1751, which would allow death row inmates to choose a firing squad as a means of execution.

SB 1751 also would require a firing squad be mandatory for people who kill Arizona law enforcement.

Payne said juries in Arizona “impose the death penalty only in the most egregious cases after lengthy trials and appeals.”

"When a lawful sentence is handed down, the state has an obligation to carry it out," he said. "These reforms make sure justice is not indefinitely delayed because of drug shortages, legal obstacles or administrative uncertainty."

For the bill to become law, the Arizona Legislature would have to pass it. Then Arizona voters would have to vote on it in the next general election on Nov. 3, 2026.

The Center Square on Tuesday contacted the office of Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes about the firing squad bill. Her spokesperson, Richie Taylor, said Mayes was not taking a position on the bill because of the attorney general's role in enforcing the death penalty.

One opponent of the bill is the Catholic Mobilizing Network, which advocates against the death penalty.

Krisanne Vaillancourt Murphy, the nonprofit's executive director, said America has seen “new and renewed execution methods that serve to provide alternatives to lethal injection.”

“This development comes in part due to the difficulty in procuring lethal injection drugs as pharmaceutical companies are unwilling to sell their products for state-sanctioned death,” Vaillancourt Murphy told The Center Square.

The executive director said some of these alternative methods, in addition to the firing squad, include the gas chamber and nitrogen gas asphyxiation.

“It’s hard not to look at these methods and think, 'How did we get here?' " she said. "And how does our society think this inhumanity is somehow acceptable? The reality is, those are the questions we should ask ourselves each time there is an execution."

“The death penalty is contrary to human dignity and an affront to the sanctity of life," Vaillancourt Murphy told The Center Square

She added that the “system of capital punishment has become all the more deceptive to make executions appear more palatable, sterile, and ‘humane.’”

“Executions are never any of these things,” Vaillancourt Murphy noted.

Regardless of how someone is executed, the death penalty “extinguishes a God-given life with inherent dignity and worth,” the executive director noted.

“Each and every execution is a blatant act of state-sanctioned violence,” she said. "Each method of execution carries its own risk for error and unimaginable pain.”

She brought up the example of Mikal Mahdi, who was executed in 2025 in South Carolina. He went on a crime spree in 2004, killing two people. Mahdi killed an off-duty police officer in South Carolina.

As a result of this crime, Mahdi received the death penalty in South Carolina.

When Mahdi was being executed, the three-person firing squad missed Mahdi’s heart, NPR reported. Bullets caused damage to his liver and other internal organs, the outlet stated.

The bullets missing the heart caused Mahdi to have a prolonged death, according to doctors who reviewed the state’s autopsy for NPR.

Mahdi and Brad Keith Sigmon were executed by firing squad last year in South Carolina.

“This is a reminder that every execution — regardless of the method or the procedures that take place — is a violent act that disregards the dignity of life,” Vaillancourt Murphy said.

"The only way to avoid the suffering of those being executed is to stop executing people altogether," she said.

Currently in America, five states allow for the firing squad to be used as an option for the death penalty: Idaho, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah.

According to Vaillancourt Murphy, last year, 47 executions were carried out, which she said “represented a record high within the past decade.”

A Gallup poll from October 2025 showed 52% of Americans favored the death penalty, which was at its lowest level since March 1972.

“The American public is falling out of favor with the revenge-driven practice of capital punishment," Vaillancourt Murphy noted. "With our continued advocacy, we can urge elected officials and decision makers to move away from it as well."

(The Center Square) – A judge Tuesday rejected defense lawyers’ motion to disqualify the Utah County Attorney’s Office as the prosecution team in the case of Tyler James Robinson, charged with the murder of conservative leader Charlie Kirk.

The attorneys did not show that a significant risk to Robinson’s constitutional right to due process was posed by prosecutor Chad Grunander’s adult daughter being at the Utah Valley University rally where Kirk was shot and killed on Sept. 10, Judge Tony Graf Jr. ruled at the Fourth Judicial District Court in Provo, Utah. Kirk was a Scottsdale, Ariz. resident who cofounded Phoenix-based Turning Point USA and was speaking at the rally where he was killed.

“Defendant has not shown prosecution by the Utah County Attorney’s Office is tainted,” Graf said during the virtual hearing.

“The court is unpersuaded that Mr. Grunander’s relationship creates bias,” Graf said, ruling from his courtroom.

Attorneys representing prosecution, defense and media participated in the hearing from their offices. Robinson participated by audio only from the Utah County Jail and spoke only one time, to confirm to Graf that he could hear everyone.

Graf said Grunander’s daughter’s presence did not influence Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray’s decision to seek the death penalty if Robinson is convicted of aggravated murder. The judge also noted the ultimate decision to file charges against Robinson was made by Gray, not Grunander, who is the chief deputy in Gray's office.

Graf added the Utah County Attorney’s Office has not called the daughter as a witness for the prosecution.

The judge also cited various unrelated cases to show where there was prosecutorial bias and said those conditions did not exist in the Robinson case.

After announcing his ruling, Graf spent the rest of the hearing consulting with attorneys about court dates for the next hearings. The judge ultimately set a three-hour hearing for March 13 and an all-day hearing for April 17. Both hearings are scheduled to start at 10 a.m. Mountain Standard Time.

Robinson, 22, is charged with seven counts, six of which are felonies. They include aggravated murder and multiple counts of witness tampering and obstruction of justice.

(The Center Square) – In one year, illegal border crossings dropped by 96% at the southwest border, an historic shift from record highs during the Biden administration.

In January, 34,626 illegal border crosser apprehensions were reported nationwide, up from numbers hovering around 30,000 in October, November and December.

The January total is a significant drop from 242,071 in January 2024, 209,151 in January 2023 and 81,479 in January 2025, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data.

At the southwest border, apprehensions totaled 9,726 in January, down from 61,445 in January 2025, an 84% decrease over the year. The numbers also represent a dramatic drop from 176,195 in January 2024 and 157,358 in January 2023, according to the data.

At the northern border, 4,261 illegal border crosser apprehensions were recorded in January despite harsh winter conditions. In November, 3,583 were apprehended at the northern border, according to the data.

January’s northern border total represents a significant downward trajectory from 4,976 in January 2025, 13,390 in January 2023, and a high of 15,916 in January 2024. The northern border saw unprecedented numbers of illegal border crossers and crime under the Biden administration, The Center Square reported. For years, northern U.S. states and Indian reservations have been impacted by transnational crime, human and drug trafficking orchestrated by Mexican cartels and Chinese Triad operating in Canada, The Center Square reported.

Nationwide, encounters averaged 1,117 a day in January, 58% lower than the 2,628 daily average from January 2025, CBP said in a statement.

Border Patrol agents make apprehensions between ports of entry. CBP Office of Field Operations officers make apprehensions at ports of entry. According to the data, CBP OFO officers apprehended 26,749 illegal border crossers and Border Patrol agents apprehended 7,877 in January, bringing the total to 34,626 for the month, according to the data.

The data contradicts claims repeatedly made by Department of Homeland Security Kristi Noem that no one is illegally entering the country. The claims date to last August when she stated at a cabinet meeting, “We've gone three months in a row now with zero illegal aliens coming into this country."

By last July, the Trump administration had released 13,000 inadmissible foreign nationals into the country, according to CBP data, The Center Square reported. Texas Department of Public Safety officers have also been apprehending roughly 100 illegal border crossers a week, all gotaways, The Center Square reported.

Similar to the Biden administration, the Trump administration is not publicly reporting gotaway data.

Gotaways are the official CBP term for foreign nationals who illegally enter the country between ports of entry to evade capture and don’t return to Mexico or Canada. At least more than two million known and reported gotaways illegally entered the country during the Biden administration, The Center Square exclusively reported. The actual number is unknown and expected to be much higher because not all gotaways are reported.

The massive drop in illegal entries represent “historic results,” CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott said. “Border Patrol apprehensions are down 96% from the previous administration’s monthly average,” he said, referring to the southwest border. “This historic reduction reflects the dedication of our agents and officers to securing our borders, protecting our communities, and upholding the rule of law.”

He also points out that the number of apprehensions made in January were 91% below the peak of 370,883 apprehended during the Biden administration.

Border Patrol agents apprehensions at the southwest border were also 96% lower than the monthly average of the Bidem administration and less than the total apprehended in six days in January 2025, he added.

Over the year, Border Patrol agents apprehended 196 illegal border crossers a day along the southwest border, 96% lower than the daily average apprehended during the Biden administration. In the last nine months, they also released zero illegal border crossers into the U.S. through parole programs, he added.

(The Center Square) - Holocaust survivor Esther Basch is telling her story in a new interactive exhibit displayed by the Arizona Jewish Historical Society and the Hilton Family Holocaust Education Center.

The exhibit is part of "Triumph in Tragedy: Stories of Courage and Connection." It opened in November at Yavapai Community College in Prescott, Ariz., where it will remain on display through Aug. 31.

"Triumph in Tragedy" features an Interactive Interview developed by University of Southern California libraries and the USC Shoah Foundation. The historical society and the Holocaust education center presented the interview in partnership with the foundation and local community members.

Visitors can ask the interactive exhibit questions and receive real-time responses from Basch.

She recorded her life story over three days in September 2024. Seven months later, Basch died just shy of her 97th birthday.

“We’re very happy that Esther was able to record this in such a timely fashion. We still miss her, but her story will live forever through this conversation,” said Tony Fusco, Holocaust education director for the AJHSC.

Fusco called Basch’s survival story “amazing,” saying her call to action was “I can forgive, but I can’t forget.”

“It is extremely resounding in the sense that she believes that everyone should be compassionate, caring [and] loving,” Fusco told The Center Square.

Basch was born on May 28, 1928, in Czechoslovakia.

She survived the Auschwitz concentration camp in Nazi-occupied Poland, Fusco told The Center Square. He added she arrived there on her 16th birthday, the day she was taken away from her parents.

The Holocaust education director said Basch never saw her family again after being separated from them at Auschwitz.

While at the camp, she had an encounter with Dr. Josef Mengele, who was known as the “Angel of Death," Fusco added.

He said American soldiers liberated Basch on April 14, 1945.

Basch was referred to as the “Honey Girl” because when she was liberated, she “ate a jar of honey too quickly and became deathly ill,” Fusco noted.

After surviving the Holocaust, Basch lived in Israel, France and Canada before settling down in Arizona.

Basch went on to dedicate her life to education and public speaking.

Basch’s daughter, Rachel, said her mother “shared her story so young people would understand the dangers of hatred and the power of their own choices.”

“Knowing her voice will continue to teach and inspire future generations means everything to our family,” she said.

The new Hilton Family Holocaust Education Center, opening next year, will host Basch’s Interactive Interview, Fusco noted.

"When survivors can no longer stand in front of a classroom, we have a responsibility to ensure their voices still can," said Talli Dippold, the new museum's executive director.

“Esther’s testimony does more than tell history," Dippold said. "It invites conversation, challenges indifference and reminds every generation that their choices matter."

In the upcoming museum, Basch’s exhibit will also feature artifacts, holographic technology and other items, Fusco said.

Besides focusing on stories of Holocaust survivors living in Arizona, the museum will also present information about the Holocaust and its timeline, he added.

The museum will bring about a “greater understanding of the Holocaust, but also a greater understanding of many of the local survivors that lived in Arizona,” Fusco said.

Oskar Knoblauch, a 100-year-old Holocaust survivor in Arizona, also recorded an interactive interview, which is available at the Arizona State Capitol Museum, Fusco noted.

“ I'm so proud that this type of technology that we created will help foster a living conversation that will go on forever,” he said.

There are around 70 Holocaust survivors living in Arizona, Fusco told The Center Square.

He added that there are fewer than 200,000 Holocaust survivors worldwide.

As time passes, survivors will no longer be around, making it more important than ever for students to hear them, Fusco said.

“Stories like Esther's, as well as many of the local survivors that called Arizona home, will always be remembered, and the lessons of the Holocaust will be taught, and students will have a very engaging and interactive experience,” he noted.

For more about the "Triumph in Tragedy" exhibit, see the Arizona Jewish Historical Society's website, azjhs.org/what-we-do/exhibitions.

(The Center Square) - Members of Congress from the Southwest on Friday voiced bipartisan support for the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling against President Donald Trump’s tariffs.

The justices said the power to set and change tariffs belongs to Congress, not the president. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion.

U.S. Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-California, who voted to overturn Trump’s tariffs on Canada, said checks and balances are the foundation of American government. He added that the nation's founders understood the tendency for each branch to test the limits of its authority in pursuit of even well-intentioned policy goals.

“Their ingenious solution was a dynamic power-sharing arrangement, a give-and-take among the branches, that would preserve the constitutional design over time,” Kiley told The Center Square. “Last week’s vote by Congress and today’s Supreme Court decision represent precisely that give-and-take envisioned by the founders.”

Kiley said he looks forward to working with his colleagues in the House to address the questions raised by Friday's decision as members carry on their constitutional responsibilities.

U.S. Rep. Jeff Hurd, R-Colorado, also voted for overturning the tariffs on Canada, alongside most House Democrats.

"Major trade decisions should rest on clear statutory authority, not expansive emergency interpretations,” said Hurd.

California Democrats, including U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, applauded the Supreme Court's ruling.

“Today, the Supreme Court reaffirmed what we’ve been saying for the past year,” Schiff posted on X. “Trump’s haphazard and reckless tariff policy is illegal and unconstitutional.”

It is a similar story with U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Arizona.

In an X post, Kelly called this “a huge win for American families and small businesses.” Kelly said Arizonans were being hurt by the tariffs, and he applauded Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes for challenging the tariffs.

Like Kelly, U.S. Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nevada, said people in her state were being “squeezed by high prices.” In a news release, Rosen said Trump “intentionally and illegally bypassed Congress” to implement his tariffs.

“It should be a wakeup call for Trump that the rule of law still applies to him,” said Rosen.

Nevada's other U.S. senator, Democrat Catherine Cortez Masto, said she welcomed the Supreme Court ruling.

"Over the past twelve months, Trump's trade policies have led to rising costs of food, housing, and fuel while hardworking families suffered," Cortez Masto said in a statement. "Our businesses, large and small, have felt the squeeze of rising prices, particularly those reliant on tourism. Unfortunately, President Trump is already looking for new ways to levy harmful tariffs on the American people and businesses.”

Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas dissented.

Speaking to reporters at a White House press briefing, Trump said the Supreme Court’s ruling is deeply disappointing. The president also expressed his shame at certain justices for not doing what he said is right for the nation.

“The Democrats on the court are an automatic no,” said Trump. “Just like in Congress, they’re an automatic no. They’re against anything that makes America strong, healthy and great again. They are also, frankly, a disgrace to our nation, those justices.”

Trump also said this is the product of foreign influence. If that is the case, U.S. Rep. Abe Hamadeh, R-Arizona, said it is unacceptable. A former Maricopa County prosecutor, Hamadeh does not agree with the Supreme Court ruling.

“It is clear that some members of the court have little regard for the American people, do not support his America First policies, and are far too concerned with criticism from the fake news," Hamadeh told The Center Square.

While Democrats and other critics of tariffs claim tariffs hurt people, Hamadeh said his district is “thriving” under the Trump administration.

“My team met with representatives of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. to discuss their plans for future jobs in Arizona, which I have made clear should focus on tapping into our veteran workforce,” said Hamadeh. “They are committed to assisting President Trump’s America First Manufacturing agenda, bringing high-paying employment opportunities to our district, which will dramatically increase the quality of life for our residents.”

When asked whether he would support future efforts by the president to impose tariffs, Hamadeh said yes, adding that he does not think Trump needs to rely on Congress.

“As he made clear in his presser, there are many alternatives available to him,” said Hamadeh. “For my part, I will continue to work with the administration on ensuring President Trump’s tariff policy continues, whether through existing executive action or through Congress.”

During Friday’s White House briefing, Trump announced that he will sign an executive order to enact a 10% global tariff.

(The Center Square) - Arizona House Republicans have passed a series of bills aimed at enacting federal reforms outlined in H.R. 1.

Last July, President Donald Trump signed into law H.R. 1, also known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act , which made changes to how the federal government operates programs such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps.

Glenn Farley, Common Sense Institute Arizona's director of policy and research, previously told The Center Square that the government made changes to these areas to “get its budget under control.”

Changes made at the federal level affect how states will administer these programs, especially SNAP.

An adjustment made in H.R. 1 concerns the state’s SNAP payment error rate. Farley noted that if Arizona does not get its payment error rate below 6% by fiscal year 2028, the state may need to pay between $150 million and $200 million.

To help address concerns about SNAP, Senate Majority Leader John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, told The Center Square this week that the state House passed four mirror bills, the same ones the state Senate passed last week.

Kavanagh’s SNAP reform bills range from giving the Arizona Department of Economic Security more tools to verify SNAP eligibility to adding a work requirement for people 60 or younger.

His bill proposals are also attempting to reduce the SNAP payment error rate to less than 3% by 2030 and preventing DES from obtaining work waivers for able-bodied adults without dependents without the Arizona Legislature’s approval.

Kavanagh told The Center Square that the state House and state Senate have passed identical bills regarding H.R. 1 reforms.

Besides SNAP reform, the state House has also passed reforms surrounding Medicaid, rural healthcare and reducing fraud.

“This is House Republicans delivering results,” said House Speaker Steve Montenegro, R-Surprise. “This package enforces the law, protects taxpayers and keeps vital programs focused on the people they are meant to serve.”

“That is our Majority Plan in action, and it is exactly what voters sent us here to do,” he added.

House Majority Leader Michael Carbone, R-Buckeye, said the state House is “enforcing eligibility rules, protecting safety net programs from abuse, and making sure help goes to people who actually qualify.”

If these bills are vetoed, Carbone said Medicaid costs would “continue to spiral,” and rural hospitals would “lose out on critical funding.”

“The governor should sign this legislation and protect Arizona taxpayers,” he noted.

Kavanagh said he is hopeful that Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs will sign some of these reform bills because the state can’t “afford to lose money” amid a “very tight budget year.” While Republicans hold majorities in the Senate and House, they lack enough seats to override Hobbs' vetoes.

A clue of how Hobbs will handle these bills may come from how state Democrats voted on them. Every Democratic state senator voted against all of Kavanagh's SNAP reform bills.

“The fact that all Democrats voted against these bills suggests that the Democrats may have no problem tolerating errors in entitlement programs,” Kavanagh said.

“They clearly don’t have the same concern about errors in these programs” compared to the state’s school voucher program, the majority leader noted, calling it “hypocritical.”

He said Arizona’s entitlement programs have fraud concerns, noting the state needs to “root it out because people who don’t deserve public benefits shouldn’t get them.”

Kavanagh added that Arizona taxpayers “should not be paying” for these people.

(The Center Square) - The Arizona state House Government Committee passed a bill mandating the Arizona Department of Child Safety and the state court system prioritize kinship placements when a child is taken into the state’s custody.

On Thursday afternoon, committee members voted 4-2 for House Bill 2035, with one representative voting "present."

HB 2035 adds extended family members to the list of people whom children may be placed with in DCS's cases.

The bill would also require the DCS to assume that placing children with an extended family member or a person with a significant relationship is in their best interests.

HB 2035 mandates that at preliminary protective hearings, the state family court system must presume placing children with extended family or with people with whom they have significant relationships is in the children's best interest.

The bill defines an extended family member as “an adult person who has a connection to a child by marriage to a biological family member of the child.”

Rep. Lisa Fink, R-Peoria, who is HB 2035’s sponsor, said children do better when placed in kinship care.

Fink said her bill is “seeking to codify into law what’s already DCS policy.”

Children deal with less trauma when placed with “familiar caregivers,” as well as have reduced anxiety and behavioral problems due to maintaining “existing attachment bonds,” she noted.

Compared to non-relative foster care, children in kinship care have lower rates of depression, anxiety and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Fink noted, adding that they have better academic outcomes, too.

The state senator explained when kids go missing from state care, the lowest percentage comes from kinship care.

Even though this is the current DCS policy, Fink said the policy was not being followed as well as it should be.

Dianne Post, an Arizona attorney, spoke in favor of the bill because of the “overrepresentation of African Americans in the DCS system.”

A study from the Common Sense Institute Arizona showed African Americans represent 20.2% of all children in DCS care, which is behind Hispanics (32.8%) and whites (32.4%).

She claimed African American culture, like Native American culture, “has an extended system, which is not recognized by the agency or by the courts.”

A child is “better off in foster care with a family member or a kin than with an unknown foster family,” she told the House committee.

(The Center Square) – The U.S. Department of Education has issued guidance on prayer in public schools, outlining requirements that are tied to federal education funding.

The guidance states that no public school, teacher or school official “should ever coerce or pressure a student to engage in speech or affirm a viewpoint that would violate the student’s sincere religious beliefs.”

In a statement, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said the guidance reaffirms constitutional protections for religious liberty.

“Our Constitution safeguards the free exercise of religion as one of the guiding principles of our republic, and we will vigorously protect that right in America's public schools,” McMahon said.

According to the department, the updated guidance addresses three key First Amendment protections: the right of parents and students to freedom of speech, the right to practice religion freely, and the obligation of public schools to avoid establishing or endorsing religion.

The guidance follows President Donald Trump's remarks in September at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C., where he said the department would issue new direction on prayer in public schools.

After Trump announced the guidance, the Freethought Caucus issued a statement expressing concern that the federal government could appear to favor one religion.

“This guidance helps erode the Establishment Clause, blurring the lines between private and school-sponsored prayer, and create a less inclusive environment for students of diverse faiths or no faith,” the caucus said in a statement. The group added that other actions by the Trump administration “may appear to endorse one religion over others.”

Those in support of the guidance say it clarifies existing law and protects constitutional rights.

In an exclusive interview with The Center Square, Jeremy Dys, senior counsel and chair of First Liberty Institute’s Education Practice Group, said the updated direction reflects longstanding constitutional principles.

First Liberty represented former high school football coach Joseph Kennedy in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held a public school district violated the First Amendment when it disciplined Kennedy for praying on the Washington state field after games.

“What the guidance has done well is point back at the 250 years of American history that point to welcoming religion even inside our public schools and allowing students to freely exercise their faith on campus, but to have their consciences protected when they do,” Dys said.

Dys added the prayer-in-school guidance by the Biden administration claimed to call for neutrality, but rather restricted religious freedom in public schools.

“Neutrality does not mean that you can silence religious speech and somehow create a neutral sphere,” he added. “That’s actually hostility towards religion.”

Dys said school officials should ensure that students and teachers can exercise their constitutional rights while on campus.

“The job of school officials everywhere, and every professional educator, is to maximize the freedom for its students and teachers to be able to walk through the schoolhouse gates without shedding a single part of their constitutional rights,” he said.

Under Section 8524(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, local educational agencies must certify in writing to their state educational agency that they do not have policies preventing constitutionally protected prayer in public elementary and secondary schools as a condition of receiving federal funds.

ESEA funds are federal grants provided to state and local educational agencies to supplement K-12 education, particularly for high-poverty and at-risk students.

The Center Square previously reported that in Arizona, public schools could risk losing federal funds if they fail to comply with requirements to protect constitutionally protected prayer and religious expression.

State departments of education are required to submit annual reports to the U.S. Department of Education detailing how school districts are complying with the updated guidance.

The Center Square reached out to the American Civil Liberties Union and Interfaith Alliance for comment, but did not receive a response.

(The Center Square) - Arizona gas prices have increased by nearly 25 cents over the past month, but an expert says that's not unusual for this time of the year.

According to the American Automobile Association, Arizona’s current average price of regular gasoline on Thursday was $3.195 a gallon, which is above the national average of $2.929. Last month, Arizona's average price was $2.949.

AAA spokesman Julian Paredes told The Center Square this week that gas prices have risen due to seasonality.

“Things are very cheap during the wintertime," Paredes said. "They go up, closer to spring, and then peak around summer before dropping during fall."

As people start driving more, there is more demand for fuel, Paredes noted.

Another factor contributing to rising gas prices in Arizona is that summer refineries are undergoing maintenance and switching to the summer gasoline blend, the spokesman said.

“For the most part, this is all pretty typical for February,” he noted.

Paredes said that although gas prices in Arizona have risen over the past month, they remain lower than a year ago.

AAA said the average price of regular gasoline at this time last year was $3.421 per gallon.

Paredes said Arizona gas prices are down because global oil prices have declined. The average price of a gallon of crude oil in February has been $64.53.

Oil prices were “pretty cheap” compared to a few years ago, which is “probably the biggest contributor to gas prices where they're [at] right now," Paredes said.

Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries has started producing more oil, and the market has adjusted to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, he explained.

“There is an abundance of oil in the market right now that’s keeping prices down,” Paredes said.

Arizona receives approximately 33% of its oil from California refineries. Last year, California saw a Phillips 66 oil refinery close. In 2026, a Valero oil refinery is scheduled to cease operations.

Wayne Winegarden, a Pacific Research Institute senior fellow in business and economics, said California has “very stringent environmental regulations,” such as carbon taxes and increased mandatory inventory storage requirements. The institute is based in Pasadena.

California's environmental regulations on oil refineries impose higher costs on doing business, which makes it more difficult to operate profitably, Winegarden told The Center Square.

These environmental regulations continue to “put upward pressure on operating costs,” he said.

California consistently has seen the highest gas prices in the nation in recent years. That was the case again on Thursday when California's average was $4.593 a gallon, according to AAA.

Parades said it's difficult to determine the overall impact of the recent closure of California oil refineries on Arizona gas prices.

But the AAA spokesman noted, “Fewer refineries are bad for the overall supply in a region.”

(The Center Square) - Attorney General Kris Mayes appealed the Arizona Corporation Commission's ruling that allowed Tucson Electric Power and Beale Infrastructure to enter into an energy supply agreement.

In her appeal Thursday at Maricopa County Superior Court, Mayes said the ACC did not follow Arizona law when it approved an agreement to provide 286 megawatts of electricity to the Pima County data center.

"The ACC cannot give away the constitutional authority Arizonans entrusted to it,” Mayes said.

She added that the ACC “does not have the power to let a utility and a data center operator quietly agree to set their own rates, cut the public out of the process, and call it a day.”

“If we allow that here, we are telling every large energy customer in Arizona that they can negotiate sweetheart rates outside of public oversight — and ordinary Arizonans will be left to pick up the tab," Mayes explained.

The attorney general claimed that, in this instance, the ACC did not follow its constitutional authority to determine rates by allowing private parties to adjust rate schedules without oversight.

Richie Taylor, the communications director for Mayes, told The Center Square by email that “the only way we can ensure that ratepayers are being treated fairly is through the transparent oversight framework intended by our state’s founders.”

In addition, Mayes said, the ACC “abdicated its constitutional and statutory duty to ensure that a public service corporation’s rates are just and reasonable.”

The ACC can’t approve future rate changes unless it determines the future rates will follow the state constitution’s “just and reasonable” principle, the attorney general said.

According to Mayes, the ACC can approve special contracts between a public service corporation and a customer, but for these agreements to allow these entities to “change the rate schedule for electric service without further Commission approval is an unreasonable practice.”

The legal filing stated when these entities are allowed to change rates without proper ACC approval, it prevents the established ratemaking process, public notice, interested party intervention, evidentiary hearings and cross-examination.

Taylor told The Center Square it was important for ACC to follow the public process “because that is what is required under the state constitution which was designed to protect Arizonans from monopolistic power.”

He said the “ACC’s constitutional role is to protect ratepayers and ensure that the state’s regulated monopoly utilities can attract capital needed to maintain grid reliability and provide reliable service to Arizonans.”

“Allowing large energy users to cut deals behind closed doors with a monopoly utility without public transparency is no way to go about achieving those goals,” Taylor explained.

In this case, Mayes requested a judge overrule the agreement between Tucson Electric Power and Beale Infrastructure.

(The Center Square) - An Arizona bill to prevent teachers from striking is a “very poorly written bill" that could cost school districts money, according to Geneva Fuentes, communications director for the Arizona Education Association. The AEA is the state's largest teachers' union.

This week, House Education Committee Chairman Matt Gress, R-Scottsdale, introduced House Bill 2313, which prohibits Arizona public school teachers from striking and engaging in organized work stoppages.

HB 2313 says teachers who violate these provisions would relinquish their civil service protections, reemployment rights and other benefits associated with public school employment. This penalty would apply only if a teacher collaborates with others during a strike or an organized work stoppage.

HB 2313 would also mandate the Arizona Department of Education to decrease a school’s base support funding if there is an increase in remote learning as a result of any type of work stoppage.

“Taxpayers fund instruction delivered in classrooms," Gress said. "When adults coordinate mass call-outs to shut down campuses, that is a strike in practice. It robs students of instructional time and throws working parents into chaos."

“Public schools exist to educate children," the legislator continued. "If someone organizes a work stoppage, they should not retain the privileges and protections of public employment. If regular school days are moved online because of coordinated political action, funding must reflect that."

Fuentes told The Center Square that “Arizona is already a right-to-work state, which means that public employees, including educators, are already prohibited from striking.”

The bill “duplicates existing law," Fuentes said.

She noted the teacher’s union is concerned that “the bill threatens to withhold significant funding from Arizona public school districts."

“If politicians in Phoenix decide educators at a school are organizing in a way that they don't like, it opens up a real Pandora's box of state interference and state overreach in the private lives of educators," Fuentes explained.

An example Fuentes raised was a situation in which a flu wave sweeps through a school. She asked what would happen if numerous teachers began saying they don’t feel well and might call in sick.

“Is the state going to look at that and say, ‘Well, clearly these teachers are organizing for malevolent means?’ ” she asked.

The bill “seems like another effort by Arizona legislators to punish and demonize teachers instead of doing what our students really need, which is to invest in our schools," Fuentes said.

The Arizona Education Association is “concerned about opening the door for more politically motivated decisions about teaching in Arizona,” according to Fuentes.

She added that Arizona is losing thousands of teachers a year. Between July and November 2025, the state lost more than 1,000 teachers.

“Lawmakers seem like they are really focused on pushing a political agenda related to schools instead of focusing on the children and the educators inside of them,” she noted.

Chris Thomas, the Goldwater Institute’s director of legal strategy for education policy, told the Center Square that the Phoenix-based institute’s position on teacher strikes is that “when kids are not in school, there’s no way for them to learn.”

Thomas said there is “good public policy behind” not allowing teachers to strike, which is that they are “individuals who are important to making sure our government runs.”

Arizona taxpayers are responsible for funding state school districts and teachers' salaries, he explained, adding that if teachers' strikes were legal, it would put taxpayers in a “very tough position.”

Thomas said it is “problematic” whenever teachers engage in any type of work stoppage. He said the Goldwater Institute opposes teacher strikes.

When teachers organize any type of work stoppage, much of it occurs during school hours, he explained.

“That’s troublesome because [they] are using taxpayer-provided resources to further something that really goes against the public interest,” Thomas said.

Arizona had a teacher’s strike in 2018. Thomas said the teacher didn’t call it a strike but rather an organized work stoppage.

The work stoppage occurred from April 26, 2018, to May 3, 2018.

Teachers protested over former Gov. Doug Ducey’s 20% pay increase for public school teachers.

Union members organized a work stoppage by orchestrating “organized sick outs,” he stated.

Even with substitutes, Arizona schools did not have enough teachers to “staff the schools properly in order to safely run the schools in many instances,” Thomas explained.

Many of these schools had to close during the work stoppage, he added.

Students did not go to school during the work stoppage, and some school districts added days on or changed schedules to “make up those days that they missed," Thomas said.

Despite its opposition to strikes, the Goldwater Institute is not taking a position on HB 2313, Thomas told The Center Square.

Meanwhile, national teacher unions continue to collect hundreds of millions of dollars annually in membership, The Center Square reported on Wednesday.