United States District Court for the District of Arizona

District of Arizona
Ninth Circuit
Judgeships
Posts: 13
Judges: 13
Vacancies: 0
Judges
Chief: Murray Snow
Active judges: Susan Brnovich, John Hinderaker, Diane Humetewa, Dominic Lanza, Michael Liburdi, Steven Logan, Rosemary Marquez, Scott Rash, Douglas Rayes, G. Murray Snow, James A. Soto, John Tuchi, Jennifer Zipps Senior judges: Susan Bolton, David Bury, David G. Campbell, Raner Collins, Cindy Jorgenson, Frederick Martone, Stephen McNamee, Roslyn Silver, James Teilborg, Neil Wake, Frank Zapata

The United States District Court for the District of Arizona is one of 94 United States district courts. Cases are heard in Phoenix, Tucson, Flagstaff, Yuma, and Prescott. When decisions of the court are appealed, they are appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, based in downtown San Francisco at the James R. Browning Federal Courthouse. Initial appeals are heard at the Richard Chambers Federal Courthouse in Pasadena, California.

Vacancies

See also: Current federal judicial vacancies

There are no current vacancies on the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, out of the court's 13 judicial positions.

Pending appointments

Judge	Appointed By	Assumed Office	Bachelors	Law
Angela Martinez	Joe Biden (D)
Krissa Lanham	Joe Biden (D)

Active judges

Article III judges

Judge	Appointed By	Assumed Office	Bachelors	Law
G. Murray Snow	George W. Bush (R)	July 23, 2008 -	Brigham Young University, 1984	Brigham Young University, J. Reuben Clark Law School, 1987
Jennifer Zipps	Barack Obama (D)	October 5, 2011 -	University of Arizona, 1986	Georgetown University Law Center, 1990
Diane Humetewa	Barack Obama (D)	May 16, 2014 -	Arizona State University, 1987	Arizona State University, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, 1993
John Tuchi	Barack Obama (D)	May 16, 2014 -	West Virginia University, 1987	Arizona State University Law School, 1994
Steven Logan	Barack Obama (D)	May 16, 2014 -	University of Louisville, 1988	University of Oklahoma College of Law, 1992
Rosemary Marquez	Barack Obama (D)	May 19, 2014 -	University of Arizona, 1990	University of Arizona Law, 1993
Douglas Rayes	Barack Obama (D)	May 28, 2014 -	Arizona State University, 1975	Arizona State University Law School, 1978
James A. Soto	Barack Obama (D)	June 9, 2014 -	Arizona State University, 1971	Arizona State University Law School, 1975
Dominic Lanza	Donald Trump (R)	September 10, 2018 -	Dartmouth College, 1998	Harvard Law School, 2002
Susan Brnovich	Donald Trump (R)	October 23, 2018 -	University of Wisconsin, 1990	University of Wisconsin Law School, 1994
Michael Liburdi	Donald Trump (R)	August 5, 2019 -	Arizona State University, 1998	Arizona State University, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, 2002
Scott Rash	Donald Trump (R)	May 27, 2020 -	University of Arizona, 1985	University of Arizona College of Law, 1991
John Hinderaker	Donald Trump (R)	September 29, 2020 -	University of California, Santa Barbara, 1991	University of Arizona College of Law, 1996

Active Article III judges by appointing political party

The list below displays the number of active judges by the party of the appointing president. It does not reflect how a judge may rule on specific cases or their own political preferences.

• Democrat appointed: 7
• Republican appointed: 6

Senior judges

Judge	Appointed By	Assumed Office	Bachelors	Law
Stephen McNamee	George H.W. Bush (R)	October 1, 2007 -	University of Cincinnati, 1964	University of Arizona College of Law, 1969
Frank Zapata	Bill Clinton (D)	August 3, 2010 -	University of Arizona, 1966	University of Arizona College of Law, 1973
David Bury	George W. Bush (R)	December 31, 2012 -	Oklahoma State University, 1964	University of Arizona College of Law, 1967
Frederick Martone	George W. Bush (R)	January 30, 2013 -	College of the Holy Cross, 1965	University of Notre Dame, 1972
James Teilborg	Bill Clinton (D)	January 30, 2013 -		University of Arizona College of Law, 1966
Roslyn Silver	Bill Clinton (D)	September 3, 2013 -	University of California, Santa Barbara, 1968	Arizona State University Law School, 1971
Neil Wake	George W. Bush (R)	July 5, 2016 -	Arizona State University, 1971	Harvard Law School, 1974
Susan Bolton	Bill Clinton (D)	September 1, 2016 -	University of Iowa, 1973	University of Iowa College of Law, 1975
Cindy Jorgenson	George W. Bush (R)	April 6, 2018 -	University of Arizona, 1974	University of Arizona College of Law, 1977
David G. Campbell	George W. Bush (R)	July 31, 2018 -	University of Utah, 1976	University of Utah College of Law, 1979
Raner Collins	Bill Clinton (D)	March 4, 2019 -	Arkansas Polytechnic College, 1973	University of Arizona College of Law, 1975

Senior judges by appointing political party

The list below displays the number of senior judges by the party of the appointing president. It does not reflect how a judge may rule on specific cases or their own political preferences.

• Democrat appointed: 5
• Republican appointed: 6

Magistrate judges

Federal magistrate judges are federal judges who serve in United States district courts, but they are not appointed by the president and they do not serve life terms. Magistrate judges are assigned duties by the district judges in the district in which they serve. They may preside over most phases of federal proceedings, except for criminal felony trials. The specific duties of a magistrate judge vary from district to district, but the responsibilities always include handling matters that would otherwise be on the dockets of the district judges. Full-time magistrate judges serve for renewable terms of eight years. Some federal district courts have part-time magistrate judges, who serve for renewable terms of four years.

Judge	Appointed By	Assumed Office	Bachelors	Law
D. Thomas Ferraro			Northern Arizona University, 1977	California Western Law School, 1980
Jacqueline Marshall Rateau				University of Arizona
Michelle Burns			University of Michigan, 1981	University of Toledo, 1985
James F. Metcalf		November 21, 2011 -		University of Arkansas, Little Rock
Bruce G. Macdonald		May 7, 2012 -	University of Arizona, 1982	University of Arizona, 1985
Leslie A. Bowman		May 7, 2012 -	University of Arizona	University of Arizona
Eric J. Markovich		February 10, 2014 -	Ohio University, 1989	Syracuse University Law, 1992
John Z. Boyle		September 10, 2014 -		University of Arizona
Eileen Willett		October 7, 2014 -	University of Georgia, 1980	Rutgers School of Law, 1984
Deborah M. Fine		May 4, 2015 -	State University of New York, Stony Brook, 1986	Harvard Law School, 1989
Lynnette Kimmins		April 5, 2016 -	Arizona State University, 1988	University of Arizona, 1992
Camille Bibles		February 6, 2019 -	College of Idaho, 1983	College of William & Mary, 1987
Maria Aguilera		April 1, 2019 -		University of Arizona
Michael Morrissey		January 23, 2020 -	University of Virginia, 1983	University of Virginia School of Law, 1987
Alison Bachus		April 12, 2023 -	University of Illinois, 1999	University of Arizona College of Law, 2005

Former chief judges

In order to qualify for the office of chief judge in an Article III circuit or district court, or on the United States Court of International Trade, a judge must be in active service and hold seniority over the court's commissioned judges who are 64 years of age or under, have served one year or more, and have not previously served as chief judge.

In the event that no judge on the court meets those qualifications, the youngest judge in regular active service aged 65 years or more and who has served as a judge for one year or more shall become chief judge. If no judge meets those qualifications, the judge holding seniority in active service who has not served as chief before shall become the chief judge.

The chief judge serves for a term of seven years until another judge becomes eligible to serve in the position. No judge is permitted to serve as chief judge after reaching the age of 70 years unless no other judge is qualified to serve.

Unlike the chief justice of the United States, a chief judge returns to active service after the expiration of their term and does not create a vacancy on the court by the fact of their promotion.

On the United States Court of Federal Claims, the chief judge is selected by the president of the United States. The judge must be less than 70 years of age. A chief may serve until they reach age 70 or until another judge is designated by the president as the new chief judge. If the president selects a new chief judge, the former chief judge may continue active service on the court for the remainder of their appointed term.

Raner Collins (2013-2018) Roslyn Silver (2011-2013) John Roll (2006-2011) Stephen McNamee (1999-2006) Robert Broomfield (1994-1999) William Browning (1990-1994)

Richard Bilby (1984-1990) Charles Muecke (1979-1984) Walter Craig (1973-1979) James A. Walsh (1961-1972)

Former judges

To learn more about the judges who have served on the court, see former federal judges, District of Arizona.

Jurisdiction

The Counties of Arizona (click for larger map)

The jurisdiction of the District of Arizona consists of all the counties in the state of Arizona. Court is held in the cities of Phoenix, Tucson, Flagstaff, Yuma, and Prescott.

The District of Arizona has original jurisdiction over cases filed within its jurisdiction. These cases can include civil and criminal matters that fall under federal law.

Caseloads

This section contains court management statistics dating back to 2010. It was last updated in September 2023.

Click [show] below for more information on caseload terms and definitions.

Caseload statistics explanation
Term	Explanation
Cases filed and terminated	The number of civil and criminal lawsuits formally initiated or decided by the court in a calendar year. The chart below reflects the table columns Cases filed and Cases terminated.
Average time from filing to disposition	The average amount of time, in months, from a case's date of filing to date of disposition (acquittal, sentencing, dismissal, etc.). The chart below reflects the table columns Median time (Criminal) and Median time (Civil).
Starting case load	The number of cases pending from the previous calendar year.
Cases filed	The number of civil and criminal lawsuits formally initiated in a calendar year.
Cases terminated	The total number of civil and criminal lawsuits decided by the court in a calendar year.
Remaining cases	The number of civil and criminal cases pending at the end of a given year.
Median time (Criminal)	The average amount of time, in months, from a case's date of filing to the date of disposition. In criminal cases, the date of disposition occurs on the day of sentencing or acquittal/dismissal.
Median time (Civil)	The average amount of time, in months, from a case's date of filing to the date of disposition.
Three-year civil cases	The number and percent of civil cases that were filed more than three years before the end of the given calendar year.
Vacant posts	The number of months during the year an authorized judgeship was vacant.
Trial/Post	The number of trials completed divided by the number of authorized judgeships on the court. Trials include evidentiary trials, hearings on temporary restraining orders, and preliminary injunctions.
Source: United States Courts, "Explanation of the Judicial Caseload Profiles for United States District Courts," accessed September 25, 2018

United States District Court for the District of Arizona caseload stats, 2010-2022
Year	Cases Filed	Cases Terminated	Cases Pending	Number of Judgeships	Vacant Judgeship Months	Average Total Filings per Judgeship	Trials Completed per Judgeship	Median time from filing to disposition, criminal	Median time from filing to disposition, civil	Three-year civil cases (#)	Three-year civil cases (%)
2010	12,203	10,529	7,921	13	5	939	21	5	7	107	3
2011	12,478	13,171	6,261	13	33	960	33	5	8	94	3
2012	11,564	12,677	5,822	13	24	890	20	5	7	93	3
2013	12,055	11,533	6,251	13	62	927	19	5	8	83	2
2014	11,753	12,182	5,645	13	26	904	15	5	8	74	2
2015	9,807	9,576	5,681	13	0	754	13	5	8	95	3
2016	12,106	10,184	7,427	13	10	931	14	5	6	100	2
2017	11,878	10,043	9,170	13	24	914	15	5	8	121	2
2018	12,718	9,729	12,021	13	38	978	12	5	7	212	2
2019	14,122	15,167	10,777	13	29	1,086	11	5	12	945	12
2020	8,834	12,103	7,402	13	13	680	680	4	14	836	18
2021	9,930	11,046	6,231	13	0	764	10	4	20	156	5
2022	9,631	9,593	6,134	13	0	741	11	5	9	133	5
Average	11,468	11,349	7,442	13	20	882	67	5	9	235	5

History

Court history

The District of Arizona was organized by Congress as one judicial district on June 20, 1910, with one authorized judgeship for the district. The district was then assigned to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and became effective upon the admission of Arizona on February 14, 1912. Over time, twelve permanent judicial posts were added for a total of thirteen current posts.

Judicial posts

The following table highlights the development of judicial posts for the District of Alaska:

Year	Statute	Total Seats
June 20, 1910	36 Stat. 557	1
August 19, 1935	49 Stat. 659	2
May 19, 1961	75 Stat. 80	3
March 18, 1966	80 Stat. 75	4
June 2, 1970	84 Stat. 294	5
October 20, 1978	92 Stat. 1629	8
November 29, 1999	113 Stat. 1501	11
December 21, 2000	114 Stat. 2762	12
November 2, 2002	116 Stat. 1758	13

Noteworthy cases

For more information about cases in the District of Arizona, click here.

• Death penalty and the First Amendment (2014)      Judge(s):Neil Wake (Wood v. Ryan, CV 14-1447-PHX-NVW)	Click for summary→
On July 11, 2014, Judge Neil Wake ruled against postponing the execution of Arizona death-row inmate Joseph Wood, saying his lack of access to details about the drug protocol for his execution was not a violation of the First Amendment. In his opinion, Wake found that Wood had already been provided with enough information related to his execution, such as the type of drugs that would be used, the specific dosage, and the drugs’ expiration dates. He wrote that this information was “sufficient for an ‘informed public debate’” over their usage. Wood continued to seek additional information and appealed to the Ninth Circuit, where a divided panel composed of Judges Jay Bybee, Ronald Gould, and Sidney Thomas delayed the death row inmate’s execution on July 19, 2014. The judges cited Wood's First Amendment right to obtain more knowledge about the way in which he would be killed, including the qualifications and certifications of the personnel who would perform the execution. This was the first time that an appellate court ruled that a prisoner had the right to obtain such explicit details about the manner in which he would be executed. Arizona officials filed a motion for reconsideration of the panel’s ruling en banc, which was later denied by the judges of the Ninth Circuit on July 21, 2014, although the decision was divided. Arizona then filed a motion with the Supreme Court of the United States to lift the Ninth Circuit's stay, and the high court granted that motion. On July 23, 2014, Wood was executed. The procedure, which was supposed to take 10 to 15 minutes, took almost two hours. Wood reportedly gasped for the duration of the execution process, which led his attorney to file an emergency appeal with Judge Wake, as he believed his client was still alive. In it, the attorney wrote that the execution “violated Mr. Wood’s Eighth Amendment right to be executed in the absence of cruel and unusual punishment” and requested that the Arizona Department of Corrections save Wood’s life. His attorney also called Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy and three justices of the Arizona Supreme Court in an attempt to get the courts to intervene. Wood died before any judge could intervene, and Justice Kennedy eventually denied the request. Arizona temporarily halted executions in the state.

• Sheriff Joe Arpaio (2010-2012)      Judge(s):Murray Snow (Ortega Melendres et al. v. Arpaio et al., No. CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS)	Click for summary→
Judge Murray Snow presided over a case on whether to impose sanctions against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his department. The department was sued over its alleged widespread use of racial profiling against Hispanics. The District of Arizona imposed a preliminary injunction against Sheriff Arpaio and his department, disallowing them from detaining individuals based on their suspicions of citizenship. This decision was reconsidered by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the lower court's ruling.

• Lethal injection delay case (2012)      Judge(s):Neil Wake (Robert Towery, et al v. Janice Brewer, et al, No. CV-12-245-PHX-ROS)	Click for summary→
Judge Neil Wake denied a preliminary injunction that would have ceased or delayed two executions following changes to the lethal injection protocol used by the Arizona Department of Corrections. The federal defender had argued the changes gave too much power to the corrections director, decreased the qualifications of executioners, and eliminated the opportunity for an inmate to meet with his attorneys in person on the day he was scheduled to be executed. The request was denied by Wake, who had previously ruled in December of 2011 that the Corrections Department did not violate a prisoner's right in following its own department protocol.

• Medical marijuana (2012)      Judge(s):Susan Bolton (State of Arizona v. U.S., 11-cv-1072)	Click for summary→
Judge Susan Bolton dismissed a lawsuit filed by Arizona on January 4, 2012, arguing that a state law passed by voters in 2010 legalizing medical marijuana put state workers at risk for federal prosecution and imprisonment due to conflict with federal drug law. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R), who opposed the measure, sought to block the creation of marijuana dispensaries allowed by the law, claiming that state employees charged with regulating the dispensaries were at risk for federal prosecution. Bolton ruled that the state had not established a “genuine threat of imminent prosecution” and dismissed the case.

• Arizona abortion restriction (2012)      Judge(s):James Teilborg	Click for summary→
In July 2012, Judge James Teilborg ruled that an Arizona state law prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, except in medical emergencies, was constitutional because women were still able to have abortions earlier. Previously, Arizona banned most abortions after viability at 24 weeks. Two groups announced their intention to appeal the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, stating that Judge Teilborg's ruling ignored constitutional precedent. In May 2013, the Ninth Circuit ruled the law was unconstitutional “under a long line of invariant Supreme Court precedents” that a woman had a right to end a pregnancy before viability.

• Arizona immigration law/S.B. 1070 (2011)      Judge(s):Susan Bolton (USA v. State of Arizona, No. CV 10-1413-PHX-SRB)	Click for summary→
The United States Department of Justice sued Arizona to court to challenge an immigration law scheduled to take effect on July 29, 2010. In the ruling, Judge Susan Bolton upheld parts of the law, while striking down others. In summary, the following provisions were upheld: Arizona could restrict local officials from creating sanctuary city policies that limit enforcement of the law; Arizona state officials could work with the federal government on illegal immigration; and It was a crime to employ day laborers, often individuals residing in the U.S. without legal permission, that wait for work in public areas. The following were parts of the law that were blocked by the decision: Arizona could not criminalize individuals for failing to have alien registration papers on them; and Arizona could not authorize "the warrantless arrest of a person" if law officials believed he or she was in the county illegally. Arizona appealed the ruling in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit upheld Bolton's ruling on April 1, 2011. Read the Ninth Circuit opinion here: USA v. State of Arizona Arizona counter-suit On October 21, 2011, Bolton dismissed a lawsuit filed by Gov. Jan Brewer (R) against the federal government as a countersuit. Brewer claimed that the federal government was not doing enough to protect the state from illegal immigration. Bolton dismissed the case saying that the charges were political questions and not appropriate for a court to decide. Bolton also said that some of the state's claims were thrown out because they were answered in a 1994 court case could not be litigated again. Bolton wrote, "While Arizona may disagree with the established enforcement priorities, Arizona’s allegations do not give rise to a claim that the counter-defendants (the federal government) have abdicated their statutory responsibilities."

• Petland puppy mill case (2010)      Judge(s):David G. Campbell (Martinelli et al. v. Petland, Inc. and Hunte Corporation, No. CV-09-529-PHX-DGC)	Click for summary→
Judge David G. Campbell dismissed a lawsuit against Hunte Corporation on February 3, 2010, after six pet owners alleged that Petland Stores solid puppies distributed by Hunte that had come from puppy mills. The judge dismissed the case after finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hunte engaged in illegal conduct. The case was part of a series of cases filed by the Humane Society of the United States.

• Unsanctioned Green Party candidates (2010)      Judge(s):David G. Campbell (Arizona Green Party et al. vs. Ken Bennett et al., 2:10-cv-01902-DGC)	Click for summary→
In September 2010, the Green Party requested that the names of nine candidates not endorsed by the party be removed from the general election ballots in Arizona. The Green Party alleged that the candidates were recruited by Republicans to restrict the number of votes that could have potentially gone to Democrats. They said the public positions of the candidates were contrary to the policies supported by the party he represented. Campbell ruled that removing the candidates from the ballot would not be fair to the candidates before a full hearing on the merits of the case occurred. This allowed counties in the state to begin printing its ballots as planned.

• Arizona campaign finance (2010)      Judge(s):Roslyn Silver (McComish v. Brewer, No. CV-08-1550-PHX-ROS)	Click for summary→
On January 20, 2010, Judge Roslyn Silver ruled that portions of Arizona's matching campaign funds law, which gave participating candidates extra public funds to match other candidates' fundraising, were unconstitutional. The judge ruled that the law violated the First Amendment of the Constitution on the premise that it restricted campaigns from raising and spending their own money.

Noteworthy events

Federal Judicial Conference recommendation (2019)

In March 2019, the Federal Judicial Conference (FJC) recommended that four judgeships be added to the district and one temporary judgeship be made permanent. Based on FJC data, the district handled 685 weighted filings per judgeship from September 2017 to September 2018. Weighted filings are a specific metric used by the federal judiciary that accounts for the different amounts of time judges require to resolve types of civil and criminal cases. The national average in that period for weighted filings per judgeship was 513.

The FJC is the policy-making body for the United States federal courts system. It was first organized as the Conference of Senior Circuit Judges in 1922. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States serves as chair of the conference. The members of the conference are the chief judge of each judicial circuit, the Chief Judge of the Court of International Trade, and a district judge from each regional judicial circuit.

Federal courthouse

Five separate courthouses serve the District of Arizona.

About United States District Courts

The United States district courts are the general trial courts of the United States federal courts. There are 94 such courts. Both civil and criminal cases are filed in the district court, which is a court of both law and equity.

There is a United States bankruptcy court and a number of bankruptcy judges associated with each United States district court. Each federal judicial district has at least one courthouse, and most districts have more than one.

There is at least one judicial district for each state, and one each for Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. District courts in three insular areas—the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands—exercise the same jurisdiction as U.S. district courts. Despite their name, these courts are technically not District Courts of the United States. Judges on these territorial courts do not enjoy the protections of Article III of the Constitution, and serve terms of 10 years rather than for life.

There are 677 U.S. District Court judgeships.

The number of federal district judge positions is set by the U.S. Congress in Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 133, which authorizes a set number of judge positions, or judgeships, making changes and adjustments in these numbers from time to time.

In order to relieve the pressure of trying the hundreds of thousands of cases brought before the federal district courts each year, many trials are tried by juries, along with a presiding judge.

Appointments by president

The chart below shows the number of district court judges confirmed by the U.S. Senate through April 1 of the fourth year of each president's term in office. At this point in the term, President Bill Clinton had the most district court appointments with 152.

Judges by district

See also: Judicial vacancies in federal courts

The table below displays the number of judges in each district and indicates how many were appointed by presidents from each major political party. It also includes the number of vacancies in a district and how many pending nominations for that district are before the United States Senate. The table can be sorted by clicking the column headers above the line, and you can navigate through the pages by clicking the arrows at the top of the table. It is updated every Monday.

Judicial selection

The district courts are served by Article III federal judges who are appointed for life during "good behavior." They are usually first recommended by senators (or members of the House, occasionally). The President of the United States makes the appointments, which must then be confirmed by the U.S. Senate in accordance with Article III of the United States Constitution.

Step	A Candidacy Proceeds	A Candidacy Halts
1. Recommendation made by Congress Member to the President	President Nominates to Senate Judiciary Committee	President Declines Nomination
2. Senate Judiciary Committee interviews Candidate	Sends candidate to Senate for confirmation	Returns candidate to President, who may re-nominate to Committee
3. Senate votes on candidate confirmation	Candidate becomes federal judge	Candidate does not receive judgeship

Magistrate judges

The district courts are also served by magistrate judges. Congress created the judicial office of federal magistrate in 1968. In 1990, the position title was changed to magistrate judge. The chief judge of each district appoints one or more magistrate judges, who discharge many of the ancillary duties of district judges so judges can handle more trials. There are both full-time and part-time magistrate judge positions, and these positions are assigned to the district courts according to caseload criteria (subject to funding by Congress). A full-time magistrate judge serves a term of eight years; a part-time magistrate judge's term of office is four years.

See also

• United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• District of Alaska
• Central District of California
• Eastern District of California
• Northern District of California
• Southern District of California
• District of Hawaii
• District of Idaho
• District of Montana
• District of Nevada
• District of Oregon
• Eastern District of Washington
• Western District of Washington
• United States District Court for the District of Guam
• United States District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands

External links

• Search Google News for this topic
• United States District Court for the District of Arizona
• United States Attorney for the District of Arizona

Footnotes

Arizona courts

---

Federal courts:

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals • U.S. District Court: District of Arizona • U.S. Bankruptcy Court: District of Arizona

State courts:

Arizona Supreme Court • Arizona Court of Appeals • Arizona Superior Court • Arizona Justice Courts • Arizona Municipal Courts

State resources:

Courts in Arizona • Arizona judicial elections • Judicial selection in Arizona