Arizona Supreme Court to Decide ASU Professor’s Standing in DEI Lawsuit
On September 1, 2026, Arizona Supreme Court agreed to review ASU professor’s standing to sue over mandatory DEI training.
Why it matters: This decision could clarify the scope of legal standing in challenges to diversity training mandates at public universities, affecting how enforcement suits against such policies are brought and defended by legal professionals.
- Professor Owen Anderson sued Arizona Board of Regents in March 2024 over ASU’s mandatory 'Inclusive Communities' DEI training program.
- A lower court dismissed Anderson’s case in December 2025, ruling he lacked standing without an explicit private right to sue under the Arizona statute (A.R.S. § 41-194.03).
- Anderson petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court on September 1, 2026, seeking review of his ability to bring the lawsuit.
- The Arizona Board of Regents and Attorney General contend only regulatory agencies or the AG’s office can enforce this DEI-related statute, not individual employees.
Arizona State University (ASU) professor Owen Anderson filed a lawsuit in March 2024 seeking to block ASU’s mandatory diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training program called "Inclusive Communities." Anderson argues the training violates Arizona Revised Statutes § 41-194.03, which prohibits state agencies from requiring employees to participate in trainings that assign blame or judgment based on race, sex, or ethnicity.
The training must be completed upon hiring and every two years, with participants taking a quiz monitored for compliance. Failure to complete the training results in notifications to supervisors, underscoring its mandatory nature.
In December 2025, an Arizona superior court dismissed Anderson's case, finding he lacked legal standing because the statute does not expressly provide a private right of action—that is, a direct ability for individuals to sue for enforcement. Instead, the statute authorizes enforcement by specific regulatory bodies and the Arizona Attorney General’s office.
On September 1, 2026, Anderson petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court to review this standing issue, asking whether individuals can challenge such mandates by suing directly. The Arizona Board of Regents, representing ASU, maintains that only designated regulators and the attorney general have authority to enforce the statute, arguing this preserves the integrity of the regulatory framework.
Arizona Attorney General Thomas Ryerson has publicly stated that the DEI training was designed "to prevent blaming or mistreating individuals based on identity," highlighting the state’s view of the program’s intent and legality.
The upcoming Supreme Court ruling will clarify whether employees at public universities can seek judicial relief against DEI-related mandates absent explicit statutory authorization. Legal experts note this decision may have broader consequences for administrative law and litigation strategies concerning DEI policy enforcement in public higher education institutions.
By the numbers:
- 2024-03 — ASU professor filed lawsuit challenging DEI training
- 2025-12 — Lower court dismissed case for lack of standing
- 2026-09-01 — Arizona Supreme Court accepted review petition
Yes, but: The statute does not explicitly grant private enforcement rights, which courts often interpret as limiting standing; this creates tension between employee challenges and administrative enforcement.
What's next: The Arizona Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on the standing question within the next year, potentially setting a precedent for future DEI policy litigation in public universities.