Arizona
Fund for Empowerment v. Phoenix, City of
Fund for Empowerment is a challenge to the City of Phoenix’s practice of conducting sweeps of encampments without notice, issuing citations to unsheltered people for camping and sleeping on public property when they have no place else to go, and confiscating and destroying their property without notice or process.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Visit ACLU of Arizona
Featured
Arizona
Apr 2023
![Prison Inside](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2019/09/web18-prisonlight-1160x768-600x397.jpg)
Jensen v. Thornell
UPDATE: In a thorough and sweeping injunction issued on April 7, 2023, U.S. District Judge Roslyn O. Silver is requiring the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry (“ADCRR”) to make “substantial” changes to staffing and conditions so that medical care and mental healthcare at Arizona prisons comes up to constitutional standards.
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
Stay informed about our latest work in the courts.
By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU's privacy statement.
All Cases
29 Arizona Cases
Arizona
Sep 2015
![](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2019/09/blog_marijuana.jpg)
Welton v. State of Arizona
In March 2014 the Maricopa County Superior Court ruled in favor of Zander Welton, finding that his parents and physicians could resume treating his seizure disorder with a marijuana extract. Sadly, Zander passed away in September 2015.
During the trial, Judge Katherine Cooper found that the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA), approved by voters in 2010, allows patients to use marijuana extracts without fear of prosecution. In October of 2013, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Arizona sued the county on behalf of Zander and his parents, Jennifer and Jacob Welton, because Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery and other Arizona law enforcement agents had asserted that the AMMA does not sanction the use of marijuana extracts and threatened criminal charges for patients who used extracts.
View case
![](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2019/09/blog_marijuana.jpg)
Arizona
Smart Justice
Criminal Law Reform
Welton v. State of Arizona
In March 2014 the Maricopa County Superior Court ruled in favor of Zander Welton, finding that his parents and physicians could resume treating his seizure disorder with a marijuana extract. Sadly, Zander passed away in September 2015.
During the trial, Judge Katherine Cooper found that the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA), approved by voters in 2010, allows patients to use marijuana extracts without fear of prosecution. In October of 2013, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Arizona sued the county on behalf of Zander and his parents, Jennifer and Jacob Welton, because Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery and other Arizona law enforcement agents had asserted that the AMMA does not sanction the use of marijuana extracts and threatened criminal charges for patients who used extracts.
Sep 2015
View case
Arizona
Jun 2015
![Lopez-Valenzuela, et al. v. Maricopa County, et al.](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Lopez-Valenzuela, et al. v. Maricopa County, et al.
After a long legal battle the ACLU, on behalf of plaintiffs in Lopez Valenzuela v. Maricopa County prevailed by blocking further implementation of a law that for years did not allow judges to even consider bail for criminal defendants who were suspected of having "entered or remained in the United States illegally," and which applied to most state felony charges in Arizona, including relatively minor crimes such as shoplifting and possessing a phony ID. As a result of Proposition 100, which amended the state constitution, state courts were required to jail countless individuals who posed no risk of flight or danger to others.
View case
![Lopez-Valenzuela, et al. v. Maricopa County, et al.](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Arizona
Immigrants' Rights
Lopez-Valenzuela, et al. v. Maricopa County, et al.
After a long legal battle the ACLU, on behalf of plaintiffs in Lopez Valenzuela v. Maricopa County prevailed by blocking further implementation of a law that for years did not allow judges to even consider bail for criminal defendants who were suspected of having "entered or remained in the United States illegally," and which applied to most state felony charges in Arizona, including relatively minor crimes such as shoplifting and possessing a phony ID. As a result of Proposition 100, which amended the state constitution, state courts were required to jail countless individuals who posed no risk of flight or danger to others.
Jun 2015
View case
Arizona
Feb 2015
![Cortes v. Lakowsky](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Cortes v. Lakowsky
Over the last two years since the "show me your papers" provision of Arizona's anti-immigrant law SB 1070 went into effect, the ACLU has documented numerous cases of racial profiling and illegal detentions by law enforcement officials throughout the state. In Tucson alone, the ACLU has filed several "Notices of Claim" alleging that law enforcement officers regularly engage in racial profiling and illegal detention as a result of applying the law.
View case
![Cortes v. Lakowsky](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Arizona
Immigrants' Rights
Cortes v. Lakowsky
Over the last two years since the "show me your papers" provision of Arizona's anti-immigrant law SB 1070 went into effect, the ACLU has documented numerous cases of racial profiling and illegal detentions by law enforcement officials throughout the state. In Tucson alone, the ACLU has filed several "Notices of Claim" alleging that law enforcement officers regularly engage in racial profiling and illegal detention as a result of applying the law.
Feb 2015
View case
Arizona
Jan 2015
![Housing Nuisance Ordinances](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2019/09/web15-blog-nuisanceord-1160x768-600x397.jpg)
Nancy Markham v. City of Surprise
The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Arizona, and private firm Aiken Schenk Hawkins & Ricciardi P.C., have settled a federal lawsuit challenging an unconstitutional municipal ordinance that pressures landlords to evict a tenant if more than four calls to police are placed in 30 days or for crimes occurring at the property, even when the tenant is the victim.
Status: Closed (Settled)
View case
![Housing Nuisance Ordinances](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2019/09/web15-blog-nuisanceord-1160x768-600x397.jpg)
Arizona
Women's Rights
Nancy Markham v. City of Surprise
The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Arizona, and private firm Aiken Schenk Hawkins & Ricciardi P.C., have settled a federal lawsuit challenging an unconstitutional municipal ordinance that pressures landlords to evict a tenant if more than four calls to police are placed in 30 days or for crimes occurring at the property, even when the tenant is the victim.
Jan 2015
Status: Closed (Settled)
View case
Arizona
May 2014
![Valle del Sol v. Whiting et al.](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Valle del Sol v. Whiting et al.
(Formerly Friendly House et al. v. Whiting).
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the most hotly disputed part of Arizona's anti-immigrant law, S.B. 1070, which requires police to determine the immigration status of someone arrested or detained when there is "reasonable suspicion" they are not in the U.S. legally. The ACLU, along with a coalition of civil rights organizations, will continue to challenge the Arizona law on other constitutional grounds.
View case
![Valle del Sol v. Whiting et al.](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Arizona
Immigrants' Rights
Valle del Sol v. Whiting et al.
(Formerly Friendly House et al. v. Whiting).
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the most hotly disputed part of Arizona's anti-immigrant law, S.B. 1070, which requires police to determine the immigration status of someone arrested or detained when there is "reasonable suspicion" they are not in the U.S. legally. The ACLU, along with a coalition of civil rights organizations, will continue to challenge the Arizona law on other constitutional grounds.
May 2014
View case