(The Center Square) - The Arizona Supreme Court recently heard arguments in a DEI case that could have a widespread impact on state workers.

The Phoenix-based court will determine if Arizona State University professor Owen Anderson has legal standing to sue the Arizona Board of Regents after being required to attend diversity, equity and inclusion training courses by his employer.

Anderson said his case, Anderson v. Arizona Board of Regents, could have far-reaching implications for state employees.

“The case is about [whether] state employees have the right to hold state institutions accountable,” he told The Center Square.

The Supreme Court is reviewing the Arizona Court of Appeals’ decision that Anderson lacked legal standing to sue the Arizona Board of Regents.

The appeals court said Arizona state law, which prohibits state employees from engaging in training “that presents any form of blame or judgment on the basis of race, ethnicity or sex,” did not grant the professor a private right of action.

Jon Riches, a Goldwater Institute attorney who represents Anderson, said the appeals court did “something really bizarre” by ruling that, unless the law expressly allows Anderson and others to sue, they don’t have a legal avenue to enforce it.

Riches, who argued the case before the Supreme Court, added the courtroom proceedings went well. He said one of the Phoenix-based institute's arguments was “where there’s a legal right, there’s a legal remedy.”

The attorney said the justices have already answered the question about legal remedy.

He added that, based on court precedent, a statute’s silence about a legal cause of action does not end the analysis. Courts need to apply a test to determine whether the law implies a cause of action, he said.

The Arizona Supreme Court created the Transamerica test, which considers four factors when determining if a statute implies a private right of action: the law’s text, its statutory context, its purpose, and effects and consequences of recognizing such a claim, Riches explained.

On the other side, the attorney noted the Arizona Board of Regents argued the Transamerica test “would require it to examine things other than the text.”

Riches said the defendants claimed, “because the text did not create a cause of action, none can exist, and the court can’t consult other factors to determine whether a cause of action is created.”

According to the attorney, the justices asked “thoughtful questions of both sides.”

He noted he thought the justices were trying to “grapple with how they apply a textualist approach to interpreting the law to the test that the court set out in Transamerica.”

If the state Supreme Court justices rule in Anderson’s favor, Riches said the court will most likely send it back to trial court for “factual discovery and briefing on the merits.”

Riches said the case is important to any state employee who could “be subject to discriminatory training under state law.”

He noted if the Arizona Supreme Court allows the lower court’s ruling to stand, it would “eliminate judicial review in all sorts of cases” where state laws “confer legal rights or provide legal protections but don’t expressly provide a cause of action.”

Such a ruling could prevent people such as property owners, consumers or occupational licensees from going to court to seek relief, Riches said.

Anderson told The Center Square that his court case is important to Arizona residents because their tax dollars are supporting ASU and other public colleges and universities.

“Everyone needs to ask themselves, ‘Do I want my taxes being used to push political agendas?’” the professor said.

“I think Arizonans would say no. State-funded universities should not be pushing political agendas, and that’s what ASU got caught doing,” he noted.

Looking ahead, Riches said it could take the Arizona Supreme Court anywhere between four and six months to rule on the case.