After Mayes rescinded her challenge to the legislature’s use of opioid settlement funds, Petersen, Toma, Hobbs and the Dept. of Administration moved for award of attorney's fees and claimed her voluntary dismissal of the case does not “absolve” liability. In a joint filing, the defendant and intervenors noted their success in dissolving the AG’s temporary restraining order, which they described as “an attempt by the Attorney General to unilaterally disrupt Arizona’s constitutionally mandated budgetary and legislative process.” Attorney Brett Johnson claimed fees are “unquestionably warranted in this case” and pointed to a statute mandating an award of attorneys fees in lawsuits between governmental entities.

SCOTUS found enforcement of camping bans against unhoused people does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, clearing the way for cities to again rely on anti-camping ordinances in addressing homelessness and standing to shape ongoing litigation across the state over homeless encampments. The majority opinion, delivered by Gorsuch, overturned the Ninth Circuit ruling that barred cities from enforcing camping bans against homeless individuals. Gorsuch wrote, “The Court cannot say that the punishments Grants Pass imposes here qualify as cruel and unusual. The city imposes only limited fines for first-time offenders, an order temporarily barring an individual from camping in a public park for repeat offenders, and a maximum sentence of 30 days in jail for those who later violate an order … Such punishments do not qualify as cruel because they are not designed to ‘superad[d]’ ‘terror, pain, or disgrace.’  Nor are they unusual, because similarly limited fines and jail terms have been and remain among ‘the usual mode[s]’ for punishing criminal offenses throughout the country.” The majority further found the public camping ordinances do not criminalize individuals based on status. “The public-camping laws prohibit actions undertaken by any person, regardless of status. It makes no difference whether the charged defendant is currently a person experiencing homelessness, a backpacker on vacation, or a student who abandons his dorm room to camp out in protest on the lawn of a municipal building,” Gorsuch wrote. The ruling comes as litigation centered around cities’ actions to address homelessness proceeds through the Arizona Court of Appeals and federal district court.  Ilan Wurman, attorney for plaintiffs seeking to clear out the former Phoenix homeless encampment called “the Zone” and Tucson residents seeking to do away with a camp in a wash, said the decision “takes away an excuse that many cities have used to abdicate responsibility for the crisis.” But it clarified the decision does not mandate cities use camping bans. “To the extent there are cities who genuinely want to do something about the crisis, and have been hamstrung by lower federal courts, it will have a great impact,” Wurman said. “But to the many cities where the city council, the mayor, had an ideological policy decision on trying to enforce camping bans despite the availability of shelter, the Grants Pass decision won't change anything, right? And so we still expect public nuisance litigation to go on in many of those cities, including Phoenix and Tucson.” The plaintiffs who challenged the Zone secured a permanent injunction, prompting the city of Phoenix to appeal. And in Tucson, a judge declined to enter an injunction, prompting the residents to appeal. As for federal litigation, Jared Keenan, ACLU attorney and counsel for the nonprofit challenging “sweeps” of unhoused people’s belongings in federal court on behalf of the Fund for Empowerment, said the ruling raises concerns over how the city of Phoenix will enforce camping bans going forward. He noted the ruling will have some impact on the Fund for Empowerment’s complaint, but added the claims in the case go beyond the Eighth Amendment and look to constitutional violations in the way of excessive fines and illegal seizure of property. The Fund for Empowerment plans to file an amended complaint in the suit by July 1.

PHOENIX – Attorney General Kris Mayes today received court approval of a consent judgment terminating illegal secrecy clauses in arbitration agreements used by dozens of Arizona assisted living facilities. The consent judgment applies to all facilities operated by Bandera Healthcare, the Arizona subsidiary of The Ensign Group, Inc. “This is another important step toward the goal of transparency and accountability for all companies that provide care to our most vulnerable citizens,” said Attorney General Mayes. “The Legislature gave the Attorney General a vital role in enforcing our statutes against abuse, neglect, and exploitation of vulnerable adults, but I cannot do that job if victims and their attorneys are blocked from notifying me when they learn of abusive practices because of these illegal secrecy clauses.” For any future arbitrations involving those facilities, residents and their families will be free to notify the Attorney General if they discover evidence of abusive practices.  This is the second such consent agreement in recent months, following a similar 

with Senita Ridge in February. In May, Attorney General Mayes 

 in a lawsuit filed by the family of Robert Knight, a man suffering from dementia who died from a massive bed sore he received while at the Sunwest Choice facility. Some claims were covered by an arbitration agreement containing a secrecy clause, in violation of Arizona law requiring notice to the Attorney General in when a case involves abuse, neglect, or exploitation of vulnerable adults. Rather than opposing the intervention, the defendants quickly agreed to invalidate all existing secrecy clauses. As part of the consent judgment, the defendants acknowledged they had discontinued use of these secrecy clauses in January 2024, shortly after the Attorney General’s

 in the Senita Ridge case. “I was especially pleased to learn that Bandera had already changed their forms to eliminate these clauses even before we intervened in their case,” said Attorney General Mayes. “I am prepared to keep filing interventions for as long as necessary, but it won’t be necessary if facilities stop using these secrecy clauses.” The defendants will also provide a copy of the consent judgment to any claimants who previously signed an older version of the arbitration agreement, so those residents and families know that the secrecy clause is invalid and unenforceable. “Anyone who has signed one of these secrecy clauses in the past should know that the clauses are not enforceable against them,” said Attorney General Mayes. “If the facility doesn’t inform you that the secrecy clause in your agreement is invalid, contact my office and we will intervene.” The case Attorney General Mayes sought to intervene in is Knight v. Sunwest Choice Health and Rehab, et al., Maricopa County Superior Court number CV2024-007103. “I believe the best way to protect our vulnerable citizens going forward is exposing and eliminating the failures that led to previous harms," said Attorney General Mayes. "I hope every long-term care facility in Arizona gets that message and embraces transparency without the need for intervention from the Attorney General’s Office.”

The U.S. Supreme Court just removed Arizona city officials’ excuse for refusing to clean up their cities amid the devastating homelessness crisis. The Goldwater Institute responded to the decision in 

 with the following 

: “Today's decision removes Arizona cities’ excuse for failing to enforce the law amid a devastating homelessness crisis that has destroyed countless lives and livelihoods. Leaders in cities like Phoenix have claimed that a Ninth Circuit ruling forbade them from taking action to clean up the streets – and law-abiding property and business owners have paid the price through no fault of their own.” “Arizonans no longer trust that their tax dollars are being used by local governments to enforce the law and address rampant homelessness. But Prop 312, a first-in-the-nation reform on Arizona’s 2024 general election ballot, offers relief – compensating the residents, businesses, and property owners who have suffered from government’s inaction via a tax refund for mitigation expenses incurred as municipalities refuse to enforce the law.” Local leaders, especially in Phoenix, have been using a pair of Ninth Circuit rulings

as cover to avoid addressing the homelessness epidemic spreading pollution, disease, and violent crime through our cities — but their lack of action has only made the crisis worse. Analyzing today’s decision, Goldwater VP for Legal Affairs Timothy Sandefur 

: Today’s decision also makes clear why local communities must take responsibility for enforcing the law to protect taxpayers and property owners, rather than engage in massive, ideologically driven dereliction of duty. Arizona voters will have a chance to do just that this fall, when they consider 

, an initiative that provides that when city officials purposely create homeless encampments and lawless zones, as Phoenix leaders did in recent years, citizens who take steps to protect themselves—by installing security bars or cameras or hiring a security guard—will at least be entitled to deduct the costs of doing so from their taxes, and that cities that refuse to shoulder their responsibilities have their funding reduced proportionately. If cities won’t do their jobs—as Phoenix refused to do—taxpayers should at least get their money back.

PHOENIX, ARIZONA— A major victory in the fight to address Arizona's homeless crisis after the U.S. Supreme Court today ruled in favor of the position argued by Senate President Warren Petersen in an amicus brief on a case originating out of Oregon, clearing the way for states and local jurisdictions to adopt policies tackling the issue of tent cities and other encampments plagued with public safety and public health concerns. In July of last year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Gloria Johnson finding a constitutional "right" for individuals to camp and sleep on sidewalks, in parks, on playgrounds, and other public places, in defiance of traditional health, safety, and welfare laws. The court's bizarre interpretation of the Eight Amendment effectively required states and municipalities to surrender public spaces to homeless encampments, with all the criminal activity, drug abuse, violence, and dangerous diseases associated with them. Two months later, while Phoenix residents were pleading for help with the homeless encampment near the Arizona Capitol known as "The Zone," President Petersen filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Arizona State Legislature asking the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on the case. The request was accepted in January of this year, and the Court confirmed today the Ninth Circuit seized a policymaking area reserved for state and local lawmakers, while it also wrongfully classified the enforcement of laws to limit homeless encampments as "cruel and unusual punishment," and that the Ninth Circuit's ruling blocked state and local lawmakers from doing their jobs to mitigate the problems surrounding homeless encampments. According to a 2024 report from Common Sense Institute, Arizona is spending approximately $1 billion yearly on homelessness, with an estimated 14,000 people experiencing homelessness statewide. In 2023, 7600 of those individuals were living on the streets. "This ruling is a victory in our state's efforts to tackle the humanitarian crisis destroying lives and livelihoods within our communities on a daily basis," said President Petersen. "Our children shouldn't be forced to walk to school on streets littered with needles, feces, and trash. The individuals camping out should be discouraged from this practice through enforceable laws and be provided with the mental health or substance abuse services they need to overcome this terrible situation. Our Governor and other progressive elected officials serving in Arizona no longer have any excuses as to why we must continue to allow these encampments. We look forward to crafting common sense legislation on this matter in the near future, and for the Governor to do the right thing by signing those bills. While Arizona's attorney general remains absent on these issues of grave importance to our state, the Legislature remains committed to defending our laws and fighting against both judicial and executive overreach."

TUCSON, ARIZONA – June 28, 2024 – In response to the Supreme Court ruling on homeless camping bans, the Pima County Attorney’s Office has released the following statement: “Regarding homelessness, the Ninth Circuit had developed an excellent rule. If there is bed space available and a person refuses services, authorities could proceed under trespass guidelines. But now the U.S. Supreme Court has turned that on its head by saying that even when there’s no space available, we can just pretend that people are deliberately outside in 105-degree heat. Let me be clear, when criminal behavior is afoot, we have and will continue to hold people accountable. But arresting people for sleeping is not the way. Fortunately, I don’t foresee our local authorities using precious resources in an attempt to arrest our way out of chronic illness. While the Supreme Court might tolerate cruelty, our community does not.”

Pima County struggles with affordable housing availability and the necessary funding to reduce or eliminate acute or chronic homelessness. We cannot arrest our way out of the problem and simply being unhoused is not a crime. If a homeless encampment is a problem, we have a longstanding policy to deploy assistance resources to these areas and affect relocations before requiring people to leave an area.