Weinzweig, David

Meet the Justice

Division:

Division I

Responses

Response Legend

*Comment
−Declined to respond

Question	Response	Comments/Notes
1. Please describe your judicial philosophy — how you understand the role of a judge, and how you go about deciding the cases that come before you.	−
2. Is there a jurist — from any court, living or deceased — whose approach to judging you particularly admire? Please name the jurist and briefly explain why.	−
3. Where would you place your own approach to statutory construction on the spectrum below, with “textualism” at one end (1) and “purposivism” at the other(10)?	−
4. Please rate your agreement with the following statement of Chief Justice John Roberts on a scale of 1 to 5 with a "1" for strongly agree to a "10" for strongly disagree: “Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire.”	−
5. Please rate your agreement with this statement from former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall on a scale of 1 to 5 with a "1" for strongly disagree to a "5" for strongly agree: "Judicial power, as contradistinguished from the power of the laws, has no existence. Courts are the mere instruments of the law, and can will nothing. When they are said to exercise a discretion, it is a mere legal discretion, a discretion to be exercised in discerning the course prescribed by law; and, when that is discerned, it is the duty of the Court to follow it. Judicial power is never exercised for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the Judge; always for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the Legislature; or, in other words, to the will of the law."	−
6. Please rate your agreement with the following statement of Chief Justice John Marshall on a scale of 1 to 5 with a "1" for strongly disagree to a "5" for strongly agree: "The Due Process Clause specially protects those fundamental rights and liberties that are, objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.	−
7. Is there anything else you would like Arizona voters to know about how you approach your work as a judge?	−

Judicial Decisions

LIVING UNITED FOR CHANGE IN ARIZONA V. STATE

Case Date: 09/10/2026Case Number: 1 CA-CV 25-0966Question Presented: Whether the superior court erred by dismissing a challenge to the Arizona’s Secure the Border Act where the plaintiffs argued the Act was unconstitutional under the Arizona Constitution because it (1) violates the Revenue Source Rule, (2) infringes on the judiciary’s authority to define probable cause, and (3) unlawfully delegates lawmaking power to Texas.Decision: The court affirms the trial court decision, holding that the Act does not affirmatively require any expenditure of state revenues so does not violate Ariz. Const. art. 9, § 23(A), the plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the Probably Clause provision simply because its members share characteristics with immigrants entering on the southern border, and the legislature may condition a statute’s operation/enforceability on a future contingency without unconstitutionally delegating its authority to make law.Judge Position: Authored the 3-1 decision.

ROGERS, et al. v. HON MROZ, et al.

Case Date: 12/08/2020Case Number: 1 CA-SA 19-0262Question Presented: Whether summary judgement for Candidate A was appropriate based on the evidence and in light of the First Amendment’s protection of free speech in a case where Candidate A published two political attack ads against her political opponent, and which later caused the candidate B’s employer to sue the Candidate A and her campaign for defamation and false light.Decision: The court reversed the superior court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment on the defamation and false light claims based on the fundamental rights of free speech and free association, which are especially true in elections, when voters need more information about the candidates who seek to represent them and candidates have nothing but words and ideas in their political contest for hearts and minds.Judge Position: Authored the 2-1 decision, in which J. Cattani dissented.Summary of Dissent or Concurrence: Dissent by J. Cattani: A reasonable person could have understood the political ad at issue as insinuating that the company was complicit in illegal conduct and that would be clear and potentially defamatory, so the trial court was right to deny Candidate A’s motion for summary judgement.