In a landmark legal decision on February 6, 2026, a state court in Arizona struck down several abortion restriction laws, ruling they conflict with a constitutional right to abortion that Arizona voters established in 2024. The ruling is likely to significantly expand reproductive healthcare access across the state and intensify
ongoing political and legal debates about abortion rights.
Background: Voters Establish Abortion Rights in State Constitution
The legal battle stems from Arizona Proposition 139, a voter-approved initiative passed in November 2024 that amended the Arizona Constitution to guarantee a “fundamental right to abortion” in the state through at least the point of fetal viability. The amendment prohibits laws that deny, restrict, or interfere with that right unless the state can justify them using the most exacting standards of constitutional review.
Before this amendment, Arizona’s abortion laws included multiple restrictions many dating back decades that limited how and when abortions could be provided. Even after voters codified abortion rights, some of these older laws remained on the books, prompting legal challenges.
What Laws Were Struck Down?
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Gregory Como ruled that three major categories of restrictions were unconstitutional because they interfered with the rights guaranteed by Proposition 139 and placed undue burdens on patients. Specifically, the court invalidated laws that:
- Banned the use of telemedicine for medication abortion, including prescriptions and mailing of abortion pills. Telemedicine has become an increasingly common method of access to abortion medication, particularly for patients in remote or underserved areas.
- Required ultrasounds, Rh testing, and a mandatory waiting period, forcing patients to make at least two separate visits to a healthcare provider and wait 24 hours before obtaining care. These requirements were found to delay time-sensitive medical care without demonstrated benefits.
- Prohibited abortions based on fetal genetic abnormalities, creating legal obstacles for providers and patients when certain prenatal diagnoses were involved.
In his written opinion, the judge concluded that these provisions did not further patient health or safety and instead “unduly burdened” individuals seeking abortion care in violation of the state constitution.
Who Challenged the Laws?
The lawsuit was filed by two obstetricians and the Arizona Medical Association, supported by reproductive rights groups and medical professionals. Plaintiffs argued that the restrictions not only contravened the voter-approved constitutional amendment but also hindered their ability to provide timely and medically appropriate care. One physician involved in the case described the decision as removing “unnecessary hurdles” that previously delayed or blocked care.
Arizona’s Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes backed the lawsuit and praised the ruling, calling it a victory for patients and for the principle that medical decisions should be made without undue political interference.
Legislative Reaction and Potential Appeal
Republican leaders in the Arizona legislature, who intervened in the lawsuit to defend the older statutes, strongly criticized the court’s decision. They argued that striking down
long-standing laws undermines legislative authority and vowed to pursue an appeal. The matter may ultimately be resolved by a
higher state court or potentially Arizona’s Supreme Court.
Legal and Policy Implications
This ruling marks a significant moment in Arizona’s evolving abortion law landscape. After the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion, states were left to regulate abortion on their own. In Arizona, voters chose to protect abortion rights directly through the state constitution, a relatively rare step among U.S. states.
Despite the passage of Proposition 139, legal challenges persisted because older laws continued to restrict access. In March 2025, a separate state court permanently blocked Arizona’s 15-week abortion ban, also finding it inconsistent with the new constitutional protections.
The February 2026 decision builds on that precedent by targeting secondary restrictions that had not yet been fully addressed. By removing barriers such as mandatory in-person information requirements and telemedicine bans, the ruling may broaden access, especially in rural or underserved areas.
Broader Context: Abortion Rights Across the United States
Arizona’s ruling reflects a
larger national trend where disparities between state ballot initiatives and existing laws are generating litigation. Multiple states that have adopted constitutional protections for reproductive freedom are now facing legal disputes over the interpretation and enforcement of those rights. These cases test how far state constitutions can limit legislative restrictions on abortion access.
What Comes Next?
Legal experts predict that the decision will face appellate scrutiny, and an appeal could delay full implementation of the ruling. Meanwhile, healthcare providers and reproductive rights advocates are preparing for a new phase of litigation that could further define how abortion rights are protected in Arizona. If appellate courts affirm the decision, it could set a powerful precedent for challenging similar restrictions in other states that have adopted reproductive freedom amendments.
Discover exclusive legal job opportunities before they go public. Advance your legal career with
LawCrossing’s curated attorney jobs, expert career tools, and insider access start your search today.
