Arizona House Speaker Ben Toma (R-Peoria) and Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen (R-Mesa) submitted an amicus brief on Monday, asking a federal court for permission to intervene in a lawsuit over taxpayer-funded gender reassignment surgeries that Governor Katie Hobbs seemed poised to conclude with a recent executive order.
The amicus brief was filed in Toomey v. State of Arizona, a lawsuit launched in 2019 on behalf of Russell Toomey, an associate professor at the University of Arizona who is transgender, by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Arizona. It alleged that the State of Arizona and the Arizona Board of Regents violated federal civil rights statutes and the U.S. Constitution because refusing to pay for gender reassignment surgery for state employees “unlawfully discriminates against transgender people.”
In a move celebrated by the ACLU, Hobbs signed Executive Order 2013-12 last month, which requires Arizona to pay for gender reassignment surgeries for state employees. However, Republicans note the executive order makes no mention of children, or A.R.S. 32-3230, a law signed last year which bans a litany of transgender treatments and surgeries for all Arizonans under the age of 18.
“Although Governor Hobbs and I may disagree on matters of policy, state statute prevails over any statements or executive orders from the Governor,” said Toma in a press release announcing the amicus brief. “Given that Arizona law prohibits gender reassignment surgeries for anyone under 18, Governor Hobbs cannot expressly or implicitly undo Arizona’s statutory prohibition, through litigation or otherwise.”
Toma said the amicus brief was “critical” because the ACLU and Hobbs “neglected to address” the issue of minor gender reassignment surgeries in their proposed settlement agreement.
In the legal document, the Republicans wrote that neither the ACLU nor Arizona explained how the executive order “relates to existing Arizona statutory law,” and suggest both the ACLU and Hobbs’ legal team ignored A.R.S. 32-3230 “even though the parties’ proposed Consent Decree implicates, and risks violating” the law.
