FREE SPEECH AND EQUAL PROTECTION CONSTITUTIONAL DEPARTURES ON THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT

Abstract

The U.S. Constitution sets the floor, and not the ceiling, of constitutionally protected rights. State courts can interpret their constitutions to expand civil liberties unique to the state and its framers’ intentions. However, state courts are reluctant to interpret their constitution independent of U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence. The purpose of this paper is to determine how often the Arizona Supreme Court departs from U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence in the areas of free speech and equal protection. A WestLaw search of free speech and equal protection was narrowed to include only decisions from the Arizona Supreme Court. These cases were categorized based on if and how the court interpreted the Arizona constitution. The frequency in which this court departs from U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence sheds light on if Arizona affords its citizens more expansive rights than the floor set by the U.S. Constitution. While this research is limited, it found that the Arizona Supreme Court rarely interprets on its constitutional provisions independent of the U.S. Constitution. This finding demonstrates how decades of academic discourse influenced a state court’s constitutional interpretation. This paper calls for more research to establish stronger conclusions and evaluate other rights or different state supreme courts.