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
KNIGHT et al v FONTES et al
Case Date: 12/04/2025Case Number: CV-24-0220-T/APQuestion Presented: Whether the retention election process for state court of appeals judges violates the Free and Equal Elections Clause and the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Arizona Constitution.Decision: The statute setting out the retention election process for judges is constitutional. Judge Position: Joined the 7/0 decision.
ROBIN ROEBUCK v MAYO CLINIC, et al.
Case Date: 09/12/2025Case Number: CV-23-0262-PRQuestion Presented: Whether a state law exempting health care professionals and institutions from civil liability for services provided during a pandemic unless the plaintiff proves by “clear and convincing evidence” that the healthcare provider acted with “willful misconduct or gross negligence” is constitutional.Decision: The court held that the part of the law abolishing the right to bring an ordinary negligence action against a health care provider is unconstitutional. However, the higher burden of proof (“clear and convincing evidence” is constitutional.Judge Position: Joined the 4/1 decision in which J. Bolick dissented in part, dissented from the judgment, and concurred in part with which J. Montgomery joined.Summary of Dissent or Concurrence: Dissent in part by J. Bolick: The state law is constitutional. Concurrence in part by J. Bolick joined by J. Montgomery: The majority is correct that hospitals do not gain sovereign immunity during pandemics as if they are extensions of the state.
SMITH et al v FONTES et al/MAKE ELECTIONS FAIR
Case Date: 08/06/2025Case Number: CV-24-0222-AP/ELQuestion Presented: Whether A.R.S. § 19-121.04(A), which required the Secretary of State to double count some invalid signatures, is unconstitutional as applied to the Initiative because it effectively disqualified the Initiative from the ballot. Decision: The law, A.R.S. § 19-121.04(A), as applied to the Initiative, unconstitutionally raised the 15% signature threshold for proposing a constitutional amendment via initiative.Judge Position: Authored the 7/0 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v PRESTON ALTON STRONG
Case Date: 09/03/2024Case Number: CR-17-0201-APQuestion Presented: Whether the imposition of the death penalty violates (1) the “right to a speedy indictment” pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and article 2, sections 23 and 24 of the Arizona Constitution, (2) the right to impartial jury pursuant to U.S. Const. amends. VI, XIV, (3) the right to due process pursuant to Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and article 2, sections 23 and 24 of the Arizona Constitution because of late disclosure of evidence, and (4) the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article 2, section 24 of the Arizona Constitution because Arizona’s capital sentencing structure fails to adequately narrow the class of defendants eligible for the death penalty.Decision: Arizona’s capital sentencing structure does not violate the state or federal constitutions.Judge Position: Joined the 7/0 decision.
FRANCISCO, et al v AFFILIATED UROLOGISTS, et al
Case Date: 08/16/2024Case Number: CV-23-0152-PRQuestion Presented: Whether a warning required by the Food and Drug Administration regarding the use of prescription medication can serve to establish the standard of care and obviate the need for expert testimony as required by state law, and whether the state law as applied to the plaintiffs is unconstitutional under the anti-abrogation clause of Arizona’s Constitution.Decision: A state law requiring a preliminary opinion affidavit from a qualified expert permissibly regulate plaintiffs’ medical negligence claim is constitutional.Judge Position: Joined the 6/1 decision in which J. Bolick authored an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Summary of Dissent or Concurrence: Dissent in part and concurrence in part by J. Bolick: failure to follow the black box warning under the facts presented here presents a prima facie case of negligent failure to warn leading to a lack of informed consent.
PIMA COUNTY et al v STATE OF ARIZONA et al
Case Date: 07/22/2024Case Number: CV-21-0213-PRQuestion Presented: Whether a new category of secondary property taxes established in state law eliminated the State’s obligation to reimburse the counties for desegregation expenses, and, if so, whether the new law violated article 9, section 18 of the Arizona Constitution.Decision: The new category of secondary property taxes established in § 15-910(L) does not violate the Arizona Constitution and the State is not obligated to reimburse the desegregation expenses paid by Pima County.Judge Position: Joined the 7/0 decision.
AMY SILVERMAN, et al. v ADES
Case Date: 06/03/2024Case Number: CV-23-0181-PRQuestion Presented: Whether investigative journalists can engage in “bona fide research” and gain access to otherwise protected records maintained by the Arizona Department of Economic Security concerning abuse, exploitation, or neglect of vulnerable adults.Decision: Yes, they can. The Court defines “bona fide research” and provides guidance concerning ADES’s exercise of discretion in deciding whether and in what manner to release records under the “bona fide research” exception.Judge Position: Joined the 7/0 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v MANUEL DAVID PEREZ-GUTIERREZ
Case Date: 05/31/2024Case Number: CR-23-0137-PRQuestion Presented: Whether an unobjected-to violation of A.R.S. § 13-711(A)—which requires courts to explain certain sentencing decisions on the record—is amenable to: (1) fundamental-error review, (2) structural-error review, or (3) the limited-remand practice.Decision: Because violations of § 13-711(A) are like administrative errors that a trial court can correct without affecting the disposition, a remand for the limited purpose of statutory compliance is appropriate.Judge Position: Joined the 7/0 decision.
PLANNED PARENTHOOD et al v KRISTIN MAYES/HAZELRIGG
Case Date: 04/09/2024Case Number: CV-23-0005-PRQuestion Presented: Whether the Arizona Legislature repealed or otherwise restricted the pre-Roe abortion ban (A.R.S. § 13-3603) by passing the 15 weeks law (prohibiting physicians from performing elective abortions after fifteen weeks’ gestation). Decision: The 15 weeks law does not create a right to an abortion that repeals or restricts the pre-Roe law. The pre-Roe law is enforceable.Judge Position: Authored the 4/2 decision. Summary of Dissent or Concurrence: Dissent by J. Timmer joined by J. Brutinel: The two laws should be harmonized to allow physicians to perform abortions before fifteen-weeks’ gestation or when necessary to preserve the pregnant woman’s health.
CAO et al. v PFP DORSEY et al.
Case Date: 03/22/2024Case Number: CV-22-0228-PRQuestion Presented: Whether the forced sale of a condo unit violated the eminant domain provision of the Arizona Constitution or the Arizona Condominium Act.Decision: The Arizona Condominium Act does not violate the eminent domain provision of the Arizona Constitution as applied to the appellants because the condominium declaration to which they agreed included the Act and allowed for the partition of the property upon dissolution. However, the Condominium Act required the sale of all property, rather than individual units.Judge Position: Joined the 7/1 decision.
AVITIA v CRISIS PREPARATION
Case Date: 10/16/2023Case Number: CV-22-0288-PRQuestion Presented: Whether mental health professionals have a statutory or common law duty to third parties for harm caused by a patient under their care.Decision: The legal duty to report child abuse or neglect does not include reporting a risk of future harm. Mental health professionals owe a duty to third parties based not on foreseeability of harm, but on their special relationship and public policy, overruling prior decisions.Judge Position: Joined the 6/1 decision in which J. Timmer joined in part and dissented in part and wrote a separate opinion.Summary of Dissent or Concurrence: Concurrence and dissent in part by J. Timmer: The statutory duty to report child abuse or neglect does not include reporting a risk of future harm. However, the common law duty to warn and protect forseeable victims should not be overruled and the court should not have addressed the anti-abrorgation issue because neither party raised or argued it below.
TORRES et al v JAI DINING SERVICES
Case Date: 10/16/2023Case Number: CV-22-0142-PRQuestion Presented: Whether the Arizona Constitution's anti-abrogration clause extends to rights of action created after the constitution was ratified.Decision: The Court held that "the anti-abrogation clause does not extend to dram-shop actions because they were recognized after statehood."Judge Position: Joined the 4/1 decision.Summary of Dissent or Concurrence: Concurrence by J. Bolick: I fully agree with the majority and write to respond to the dissent who "would subordinate our express separation of powers to an overly expansive view of the judiciary’s implied powers." Dissent by J. Timmer: Constitutional protection for actions has evolved since statehood and the majority opinion ignores stare decisis and weakens the anti-abrogation clause's open court access guarantee.
ROBERT WALLACE v HON. JAMES D. SMITH/CRUZ et al
Case Date: 07/25/2023Case Number: CV-22-0143-SAQuestion Presented: Whether an Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure instructing courts to include “damages, costs, attorney’s fees, and prejudgment interest” when setting the amount of an appeal bond superceeds a state law instructing courts to only include damages.Decision: The Court resolved the conflict of law in favor of the Rule because determining the amount of the bond is a procedural matter within the purview of the judicial branch under the Arizona Constitution.Judge Position: Joined the 7/0 decision.
AZ PETITION PARTNERS LLC v HON. THOMPSON/STATE
Case Date: 06/21/2023Case Number: CR-22-0154-PRQuestion Presented: Whether A.R.S. § 19-118.01 facially violates the First Amendment because it only prohibits per-signature compensation to petition circulators.Decision: The statute is contitutional on its face because it is not vague, overbroad, or problematice for providing criminal penalties. Judge Position: Joined the 7/0 decision.
STATE v HONS. BREARCLIFFE/VASQUEZ et al
Case Date: 03/24/2023Case Number: CV-21-0174-SAQuestion Presented: What safeguards must be provided to a defendant before losing the right to appeal due to absence during sentencing following the defendant's conviction?Decision: The Court held that "(1) the defendant must receive notice that the right may be waived if his or her absence prevents sentencing from occurring within ninety days after conviction; (2) the waiver must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; and (3) the defendant must be provided an opportunity at sentencing to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the absence was involuntary."Judge Position: Joined the 7/0 decision.
TIMOTHY MATTHEWS v ICA/CITY OF TUCSON/TRISTAR
Case Date: 11/23/2022Case Number: CV-21-0192-PRQuestion Presented: Whether A.R.S. § 23-1043.01(B), which limits workers’ compensation claims for mental illnesses to those that arise from an “unexpected, unusual or extraordinary stress” situation, violates article 18, section 8 of the Arizona Constitution or the equal protection guarantee of article 2, section 13.Decision: The state law, which has governed compensation of stress-related workplace injuries for more than four decades, does not unconstitutionally limit recovery for such injuries.Judge Position: Joined the 6/1 decision in which J. Timmer joined in part and dissented in part and wrote a separate opinion.Summary of Dissent or Concurrence: Concurrence and dissent in part by J. Timmer: The law at issue does not violate the equal protection but it does violate article 18, section 8 of the Arizona Constitution.
LEIBSOHN et al v HOBBS/VOTERS RIGHT TO KNOW
Case Date: 09/20/2022Case Number: CV220204AP/ELQuestion Presented: Whether signatures collected by some initiative petition circulators must be disqualified because those circulators failed to strictly comply with two statutory registration requirements. Decision: While the circulators technically failed to strictly comply with one state law, the Secretary of State's registration process precluded them from complying and striking the signatures would “unreasonably hinder or restrict” the constitutional right to engage in the initiative process. Judge Position: Joined the 7/0 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v SAMMANTHA LUCILLE REBECCA ALLEN
Case Date: 07/26/2022Case Number: CR-17-0368-APQuestion Presented: Authored a state law, which sets forth an abuse of discretion standard for capital sentences, is "cruel and unusual punishment" in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Decision: Convictions and sentences including the death penalty affirmed except for Count 4 which is vacated and remanded to the trial court for resentencing on that count.Judge Position: Joined the 7/0 decision.
MORGAN/NEFF v HONS. DICKERSON/CARDINAL/STATE
Case Date: 06/14/2022Case Number: CV-21-0198-PRQuestion Presented: Whether the First Amendment of the US Constitution gives the public a right of access to jurors’ names during jury selection.Decision: The First Amendment permits court to refer to potential jurors by numbers, not names, during jury selection and the trial.Judge Position: Joined the 7/0 decision in which J. Bolick authored a concurring opinion.Summary of Dissent or Concurrence: Concurrence by J. Bolick: Arizona's Constitution contains a privacy clause that also protects juror privacy.
SOUTH POINT ENERGY CENTER LLC v ADOR et al
Case Date: 04/26/2022Case Number: CV-21-0130-PRQuestion Presented: Whether the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 expressly preempts Mohave County’s property tax on a power plant owned by non-Indian lessees of federal land held in trust for the benefit of an Indian tribe.Decision: The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 does not expressly preempt the application of Arizona Constitution, article 9, § 2(13), and A.R.S. § 42-11002, which authorizes Mohave County to tax a non-Indian lessee’s improvements built on leased Indian reservation land.Judge Position: Joined the 7/0 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v KENNETH WAYNE THOMPSON II
Case Date: 01/19/2022Case Number: CR-19-0141-APQuestion Presented: Whether judgements and sentences from a murder trial were made in error including whether the imposition of the death penalty under Arizona’s sentencing statute for felony murder violated defendant’s due process rights under the Fifth Amendment and article 2, section 4 of the Arizona Constitution and his rights under the Eighth Amendment and article 2, section 15 of the Arizona Constitution.Decision: The Court found defendant’s Constitutional rights were not violated and affirmed his convictions and sentences. Judge Position: Joined the 7/0 decision.
ARIZONA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOC et al v STATE
Case Date: 01/06/2022Case Number: CV-21-0234-T/APQuestion Presented: Whether four legislative budget reconciliation bills violate the Arizona Constitution’s “title requirement” and “single subject rule.”Decision: "Three bills violate the title requirement and are void in part, and one bill violates the single subject rule and is entirely void. "Judge Position: Authored the 7/0 decision in which J. Bolick authored a concurring opinion.Summary of Dissent or Concurrence: Concurrence by J. Bolick: The Arizona constitution assigns to the judiciary, not the legislature, the task of determining whether a bill complies with the title requirement or single subject rule.
KAREN FANN et al v STATE OF ARIZONA et al
Case Date: 08/19/2021Case Number: CV-21-0058-T/APQuestion Presented: Whether Prop. 208, imposing an income tax on some Arizona taxpayers to fund public schools, violates the expenditure limitations of the Arizona Constitution?Decision: Prop. 208 is unconstitutional to the extent that it mandates expending tax revenues in violation of the Education Expenditure Clause. The Court also holds that its non-revenue provisions are not severable.Judge Position: Joined the 6/1 decision in which J. Timmer concurred in part and dissented in part.Summary of Dissent or Concurrence: Concurrence and dissent in part by J. Timmer: Agrees with the majority that the trial court did not err by refusing to temporarily enjoin Prop. 208 but disagrees with the court's constitutional and severability analysis.
STATE OF ARIZONA v RONALD BRUCE BIGGER
Case Date: 08/16/2021Case Number: CR-20-0383-PRQuestion Presented: Whether A.R.S. § 13-4234(G) is unconstitutional as applied to the extent it conflicts with, and nullifies, Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.4(D)’s “no fault” exception to PCR filing time limits.Decision: The law is unconstitutional.Judge Position: Authored the 7/0 decision.
ANTHONY GARCIA v HON. BUTLER/STATE
Case Date: 05/26/2021Case Number: CR-19-0298-PRQuestion Presented: Whether a trial court has discretion to deny a sexually violent person (SVP) screening when the state requests one under state law.Decision: The Court upholds the law as constitutional by interpreting it to provide for the exercise of trial court discretion whether to grant the State’s request for a sexually violent person screening. Depriving the trial court of any oversight as to whether to grant the state’s request would deprive a defendant of a neutral arbiter and violate basic principles of due process.Judge Position: Joined the 6/0 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v VIVEK A PATEL
Case Date: 05/04/2021Case Number: CR-19-0366-PRQuestion Presented: Whether a state law limiting the amount of restitution that can be awarded to a victim from loss resulting from a violation of specified traffic offenses is an unconstitutional limitation on the right to receive restitution under Arizona Constitution Art. 2, § 2.1(D).Decision: The constitutional right to receive restitution guarantees the victim of a crime the right to receive the full amount of economic loss or injury caused by a defendant’s criminal conduct.Judge Position: Joined the 6/0 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v CITY OF TUCSON
Case Date: 04/14/2021Case Number: CV-20-0244-SAQuestion Presented: Whether the home rule charter provision in the Arizona Constitution overrides a state law that requires city elections be held on a statewide election date and allows a city to hold municipal elections on non-statewide election dates if provided under its charter.Decision: The state law is unconstitutional where a city charter requires electing local officials on a non-statewide election date because art. 14, §2 of the Arizona Constitution gives charter cities autonomy over matters of purely municipal concern.Judge Position: Joined the 5/1 decision in which J. Bolick dissented.Summary of Dissent or Concurrence: Dissent by J. Bolick: The words of the Arizona Constitution are clear and the state law should apply.
