By Helya Khalighy.
Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn federal abortion rights in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Arizona residents took matters into their own hands by passing Proposition 139 (Prop 139), the Right to Abortion Initiative. Prop 139, which voters approved in November 2024, amended the Arizona Constitution to guarantee a fundamental right to abortion for all residents. The provision bars the Arizona State Legislature from passing any laws that restrict or interfere with the right to an abortion before fetal viability. But just how far does this protection go? In the recent case Isaacson v. Arizona, the Maricopa County Superior Court held that several Arizona abortion restrictions were unconstitutional, even though they did not impose a total ban on abortions.
Citizen-Led Initiatives
Prop 139—now codified in Article 2, Section 8.1 of the Arizona Constitution—was passed through a citizen-led initiative. The Arizona Constitution allows citizens to propose new laws by initiative and to repeal laws enacted by the legislature through referendum. This monumental civic power gives the people of Arizona a direct voice in their government.
At the same time, getting an initiative or referendum passed is no small task. If an initiative proposes a statutory amendment, signatures from at least ten percent of qualified electors are needed for the initiative to make it onto the state ballot. If the initiative proposes a constitutional amendment, citizens must collect signatures from fifteen percent of qualified electors. The total number of qualified electors is determined by the number of registered voters who cast a vote for governor in the last general election. Currently, to place a constitutional amendment like Prop 139 on the ballot, Arizona residents must gather signatures from at least 383,923 qualified electors. This is only the first step—the initiative must then win a majority of votes to become law. It is no surprise, then, that between 1911 and 2025, only 219 citizen-led initiatives have made it onto the ballot.
The Impact of Prop 139
Once a citizen-led initiative has passed, it cannot be undone by legislation. The Arizona State Legislature cannot adopt any measure that supersedes an initiative unless the measure furthers the initiative’s purpose and is approved by three-fourths of both the House and Senate.
This does not mean that the initiative preempts any and all legislation on the topic. The question is whether the legislation encroaches on the initiative. The language of Article 2, Section 8.1 itself permits the legislature to enact laws that interfere with the right to abortion if those laws are justified by a “compelling state interest that is achieved by the least restrictive means.” A compelling state interest is defined as a law that is intended to improve the health of individuals seeking abortions without interfering with their decision-making.
When citizens approved Prop 139, it was clear that no Arizona law could ban abortion outright—but many questions still remained. A number of Arizona statutes regulated, but did not necessarily prohibit, the right to an abortion. Before Isaacson, the fate of these statutes hung in legal limbo.
Isaacson v. Arizona
On May 22, 2025, two Arizona physicians and the Arizona Medical Association filed an action in Maricopa County Superior Court asking for relief from several statutory provisions they believed interfered with the right to abortion, in violation of the Arizona Constitution. These laws included:
The Reason Ban: Prevented physicians from administering abortions if the patient was seeking one because of a genetic abnormality.
The Two-Trip Requirement: Required patients to make two separate, in-person doctor’s appointments before they could obtain an abortion.
Testing Requirements: Required all patients seeking an abortion to undergo a blood type test, unless the patient already had acceptable documentation. Also required that all patients receive an ultrasound at least twenty-four hours before obtaining an abortion.
The Telemedicine Ban: Prevented physicians from providing abortion care to patients through a digital appointment. The ban also prohibited physicians from providing patients with abortion-inducing medicine by mail.
Soon after, state legislators Warren Petersen and Steve Montenegro—the President of the Arizona Senate and the Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, respectively—intervened in the lawsuit to defend the constitutionality of these laws. The two argued that the laws were not about banning abortions but rather were necessary health and safety regulations.
On February 2, 2026, the superior court permanently enjoined every law challenged by the plaintiffs. The court found that the laws violated the Arizona Constitution by unduly interfering with the right to abortion without a compelling justification. The laws did not improve or maintain the health of those seeking an abortion—even where they had some medical benefit, the intervenors failed to show the statutes were the least restrictive way of achieving that benefit. For instance, the intervenors argued that ultrasounds and other additional tests can sometimes help ensure a patient’s abortion can be performed safely. They failed, however, to show why a law requiring such testing for every individual seeking an abortion was a sufficiently narrow means of achieving that benefit. Other regulations, such as the telemedicine ban, were characterized by the court as invasions of privacy that increased the cost and difficulty of obtaining an abortion. The ruling was a major victory for the thousands of Arizona residents who had worked tirelessly to secure the passage of Proposition 139.
What does the future hold?
The final outcome of this litigation remains to be seen. Although a trial court victory is a good first step, it is unlikely to be the last. Senator Petersen’s office has already confirmed it will appeal the ruling, and the Arizona Court of Appeals may view the statutes as a valid exercise of legislative power. Despite this uncertain future one thing is clear: Arizona residents are prepared to fight for abortion care, both at the ballots and in the courtroom.
Helya Khalighy is a second-year law student at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. Before entering law school, she earned Bachelor’s degrees in Business Law and Global Politics at Arizona State University. In her free time, Helya enjoys exploring Downtown Phoenix, cooking new recipes, and spending time with her nephews.