Arizona AG tells U.S. Supreme Court to shove it

Our Republic is at risk from radical Republicans.

We keep being told this, but somehow all the threats to legal decisions and legal norms seem to come from the Left.


You have probably noticed the full-court press against the Supreme Court the Left has been playing. Constant threats to ignore its rulings, attacks on its integrity (which, in an unusual move, the Supreme Court Justices unanimously denounced), and threats to pack the Court to regain a Leftist majority.

Now we have yet another direct attack on the Constitution and the legal system from the Arizona Attorney General.

Kris Mayes, Arizona’s Attorney General, has announced that she intends to defy the Supreme Court’s decision in 303 Creative vs. Elenis, and did so in no uncertain terms.

Today, a woefully misguided majority of the United States Supreme Court has decided that businesses open to the public may, in certain circumstances, discriminate against LGBTQ+ Americans. While my office is still reviewing the decision to determine its effects, I agree with Justice Sotomayor – the idea that the Constitution gives businesses the right to discriminate is “profoundly wrong.”

Despite today’s ruling, Arizona law prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation, including discrimination because of sexual orientation and gender identity. If any Arizonan believes that they have been the victim of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), national origin, or ancestry in a place of public accommodation, they should file a complaint with my office. I will continue to enforce Arizona’s public accommodation law to its fullest extent.


Now if Mayes has said “to the full extent allowed by the Supreme Court,” this would be a defiant but legitimate statement. “I disagree but I will comply” is fully consistent with America’s legal tradition and the Constitution. Nobody is required to agree with any Court decision, and Arizona’s public accommodation law is largely in compliance with the Court’s decision and precedent.

But she didn’t say that. She said “to its fullest extent,” which is another way of saying she will simply ignore the Court’s ruling.

Needless to say, this is illegal, and basically telling the Court that, since it has no armed police to enforce the decision, the state will simply ignore it.

Insurrection much?

One frustrating thing about all the sturm und drang about the 303 Creative case is how dishonest the discourse has been. The Court did not legalize discrimination against gays and lesbians; it prohibited states from forcing people to create works that celebrate activities that violate their moral principles. This is not an idle distinction; it remains illegal to deny service to people who are in a protected class. What the protected class member may not do is compel speech or expression in others.

Religious identity is a protected class. Would the Attorney General of Arizona require a Muslim to make a website celebrating the Crusades? I think not. Find another web designer. How hard is that?


People of all ideological stripes, although more liberals than conservatives, have taken to defying the law in order to make a point, and simply ignoring it when it suits their purpose.

No system can survive this. Of course, the Left keeps on insisting that the system itself needs to die and be replaced, so it shouldn’t surprise us.

So how do we stop this decline in respect for our institutions and the increasing willingness to break the law?

You tell me. I am flummoxed. If state governments simply defy Court decisions they dislike, what other than federal invasion can stop them? I am pretty sure we don’t want to find out what that is like.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on HotAir Videos