Skip to content
The COVID Project
  1. Library
  2. Phoenix and Tucson
  3. MET-PHX-006

Ex. MET-PHX-006 Order Primary source read

Arizona School Boards Association, Inc. v. State of Arizona, No. CV2021-012741, Ruling re: Declaratory Judgment

Ruling declaring void sections 12, 21 and 50 of HB 2898, sections 12 and 13 of SB 1824, section 2 of SB 1825 and SB 1819 in its entirety

Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County, Hon. Katherine Cooper · Arizona (Maricopa County Superior Court; statewide effect) (Court)

Open exhibit (PDF, 6.3 MB)Source (opens in a new tab)Archived copy (opens in a new tab)
The COVID Project

The record

Jurisdiction
Arizona (Maricopa County Superior Court; statewide effect) · Phoenix and Tucson · Arizona
Level
Court
Authority
Ariz. Const. art. IV, pt. 2, s. 13 (title and single-subject requirements); A.R.S. 12-1831 et seq. (declaratory judgment)
Issued
2021-09-27 Sept. 27, 2021
Effective
2021-09-27 (declaratory judgment; provisions never took effect on their Sept. 29, 2021 general effective date) (read as 2021-09-27)
End
Affirmed by the Arizona Supreme Court Nov. 2, 2021 (decision order; opinion Jan. 6, 2022) (read as 2021-11-02)
In force
Sept. 27, 2021 to Nov. 2, 2021
Quarters
2021 Q3
Limitation types
Face-covering requirementCurfew and hoursVaccination or testingOther
Addressees
  • the State of Arizona
  • counties, cities, towns, school districts and charter schools whose orders the bills would have barred
Functions reached
  • Preemption history: the statutory bar on local mask, closure, curfew and vaccine-proof orders never took effect
  • SCH school mask mandates preserved
  • WF
Collection
Phoenix and Tucson MET-PHX

Operative words

Sections 12, 21, and 50 of HB2898; Sections 12 and 13 of SB1824; Section 2 of SB1825; and SB1819 violate the title and/or subject matter requirements of the Arizona Constitution, Art. IV, pt. 2, s. 13... and are therefore void and unenforceable.... Section 12 prohibits 'a county, city, town, school district governing board or charter school governing body' from 'require[ing] the use of face coverings by students or staff'... Section 39 [of SB 1819] prohibits a 'county, city or town' from adopting 'any order, rule, ordinance or regulation related to mitigating the COVID-19 pandemic that impacts private businesses, schools, churches or other private entities, including an order, rule, ordinance or regulation that mandates using face coverings, requires closing a business or imposes a curfew.'... The bill is classic logrolling - a medley of special interests cobbled together to force a vote for all or none.

Enforcement

Declaratory judgment; further relief available under A.R.S. 12-1838

Notes

Complaint filed Aug. 12, 2021; preliminary injunction motion Aug. 18, 2021; ruling reported Sept. 27, 2021, two days before the Sept. 29 effective date (AZ Mirror). The minute entry's clerk stamp reads 09/22/2021 in the OCR layer; the ruling was announced Sept. 27, 2021.

Retrieval note

Scanned court document with OCR layer; key passages read. The Supreme Court's Nov. 2, 2021 order is post-period and is cited from AZ Mirror (secondary).

A record of The COVID Project. The instrument's text is the source's; the summary fields are The COVID Project's reading of it. Not legal advice.