PHOENIX — Leading Republican lawmakers are trying to wreck a deal that would result in a court order permanently obliging states to pay for gender reassignment surgeries to their employees and dependents.
And at least they don’t want the state to charge the $500,000 in legal fees claimed by the lawyer who filed the lawsuit.
In arguments filed in federal court, Senate Speaker Warren Petersen and House Speaker Ben Thoma argued that state insurance plans would cover a hysterectomy sought by lawsuit Russell Toomey four years ago. He said he was not trying to stop him from doing so. They say that is already on the way, with Governor Katie Hobbs directing the state’s human resources department, the Department of Administration, in June to remove language exempting “sex reassignment surgery” from health insurance. He noted that he had signed Decree No. 2023-12. Long-term care insurance is now available to state and university employees and retirees.
Drew Ensign, an attorney representing the Republican leadership, said the lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on Toomey’s behalf is invalid because Toomey’s charges have been resolved and policy has changed.
They oppose U.S. District Judge Rosemary Marquez signing an agreement that would harden enforceable consent decrees in federal courts. The order is an order that the state must permanently pay not only for Ms. Toomey’s surgery, but also for other people in the country for such surgery. Similar situation. All of this would “unfairly interfere with the future policy decisions of the Arizona Legislature and violate fundamental principles of federalism,” he said.
In a court filing, Ensign also said there were more pressing issues. It’s a 2022 law signed by then-Governor Doug Ducey that bans “irreversible gender reassignment surgery” on people under the age of 18.
“Governor. Mr. Hobbes does not have the authority to unilaterally rewrite statutes through executive orders,” he said. And the problem arises because the proposed consent decree never mentions the law regarding minors.
On the other hand, if the practice of gender reassignment surgery remains illegal in Arizona, a court order involving the application of gender reassignment surgery may mean little, Ensign said.
“Alternatively, parties may believe that if a consent decree is approved by this court, they can argue that they can silently preempt a ban on minor surgery,” he told the judge.
Christine Key, an attorney at the ACLU Foundation in Arizona, urged Marquez to ignore suggestions from Republican leaders to overturn the deal. In short, it’s too late, she said.
“This highly publicized lawsuit has been known to Senator Petersen, House Speaker Thomas, and other members of the Arizona legislature for years, but no one was qualified to participate in this lawsuit. ‘,” she wrote in her lawsuit. “It is now that lawmakers are about to appear in court to mount a senseless attack on the consent decree, which provides customary remedies for settling lawsuits challenging blatant violations of federal civil rights law. It’s been eleven o’clock.”
And Key said he sees something beyond just legal issues in the move.
“Let’s be clear, this motion is simply a Trojan horse that legislators express their deep hostility to gender-affirming considerations for political gain,” she said.
However, the second lieutenant said there was no delay.
He noted that state attorneys were actually defending the case until just before Hobbs changed the legal framework with an executive order to drop the state’s objections. At that point, Republican lawmakers immediately tried to mediate following the governor’s actions, Ensign said.
Even if Marquez disagrees with Republican lawmakers and signs the Consent Act, Petersen and Thomas have one more problem. They don’t believe the state will ultimately have to pay the $500,000 the ACLU is demanding in legal fees. And this goes back to the fact that Mr. Hobbes signed the executive order in June.
“Because the proposed consent order does not fundamentally go beyond what is already given in the executive order, there is no amount of money that would justify the proposed $500,000 (eligibility for state-funded surgery). There is no added value in the ‘class of some people’ ‘won an award,'” the ensign told the judge.
In a nutshell, the Hobbs’ executive order rescinds the contested exemption from gender reassignment surgery, giving Toomey and others in similar circumstances the very same remedies that Marquez currently seeks to approve. , he said.
“The proposed consent decree would only order defendants to do what the executive order has already ordered,” said the second lieutenant.
He told the judge, “Even if no injunction is issued, it is effectively a redundant order to take action that would certainly be taken anyway.” “Plaintiffs are not entitled to any compensation award, let alone $500,000 in taxpayer money, which is merely a mere tribute to the relief that Executive Order 2023-12 has already granted them.”
Key said the requested fee “reflects a fraction of the cost and time spent on this case over the past four years.” And $500,000 is “well within reason,” she said.
However, that has not yet been decided.
“Plaintiffs failed to provide a claim record to allow the court to assess whether the agreed-upon rates were fair and reasonable,” Marquez said in an order just last week. She then ordered her attorney to provide legal fees and cost statements by Thursday.
