Staff Reports
The Arizona Supreme Court took center stage this week in a case that smells like a showdown between common sense and campus orthodoxy. At issue is whether an ASU professor can sue over mandatory DEI training he says violated state law — and whether ordinary Arizonans will be able to use the courts to stop public institutions from spending tax dollars on political indoctrination.
What the Supreme Court just heard
On Sept. 1 the Arizona Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Anderson v. Arizona Board of Regents. The narrow legal battle is about A.R.S. § 41‑1494 — the law that bans state agencies from forcing employees to take training that assigns “blame or judgment” based on race, ethnicity, or sex. The big question: does that statute silently create a private right for an employee like ASU professor Owen Anderson to sue the Board of Regents, or did the Legislature leave enforcement to the reporting process it built into the law?
Arguments on the table
Represented by the Goldwater Institute, Anderson argues the statute must mean something — “where there’s a legal right, there’s a legal remedy,” as counsel put it — and that courts should apply Arizona’s Transamerica test (text, context, purpose, and consequences) to decide whether a private cause of action is implied. The Board of Regents answers with a familiar bureaucratic shrug: the statute is silent on remedies, so courts should not invent one and risk stepping on the Legislature’s toes. The justices pressed both sides, especially on how much textualism should control when the law doesn’t spell out a remedy.
Why this decision matters
This isn’t just a fight over one professor’s afternoon of training. If the court allows implied private suits under § 41‑1494, state employees — and taxpayers — would gain a real enforcement tool to challenge compulsory DEI sessions that look more like political sermons than job training. If the court sides with the Board and says silence equals no remedy, then the only path is the law’s reporting mechanism or whatever officials choose to do — not exactly a robust system for holding government accountable. The stakes ripple beyond ASU to any state-run workplace where employees might be forced into ideological exercises under the guise of “training.”
What comes next — and why Arizonans should watch
The justices have the case under advisement and will take time to decide. A ruling for Anderson would likely send the case back for discovery and a merits fight over whether the training violated the statute. A ruling against him would keep enforcement limited to the report-and-ignore game the bureaucracy prefers. Either way, Arizonans should pay attention: this is about whether the courts will be available to curb public institutions that use taxpayer money for political messaging. If you don’t want your tax dollars funneled into ideological sessions, this decision matters — and if you enjoy the idea of universities lecturing you at public expense, well, take a seat. The court’s ruling will tell us whether the law means anything or whether “silence” will now be the state’s favorite privacy policy.
