Pro-Life Judge Declines to Withdraw from High-Stakes Abortion Case

Supreme Court Justice William Montgomery announced on Tuesday that he will not recuse himself from an upcoming case concerning an abortion measure on the Arizona ballot.

Montgomery, a former Maricopa County attorney and appointee of ex-Gov. Doug Ducey, acknowledged past statements condemning abortion and Planned Parenthood. However, he deemed these statements legally irrelevant to the current case.

“This matter involves different parties and different issues,” Montgomery stated in his three-page order. He emphasized that a judge’s personal opinions do not equate to bias, referencing a 1975 ruling on judicial impartiality.

The decision disappointed Dawn Penich, spokeswoman for Arizona for Abortion Access. The organization has proposed a constitutional amendment to secure a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy and is contesting the Republican-controlled Legislative Council’s use of the term “unborn human being” in Proposition 139’s summary pamphlet.

A lower court had ruled the council’s language violated impartiality requirements and ordered a rewrite. Legislators, however, are seeking Supreme Court review, and Montgomery’s role in this decision is now under scrutiny.

Penich argued that Montgomery’s denial of their recusal motion lacked thorough justification, citing the need for adherence to the Code of Judicial Conduct.

The court rules stipulate that justices decide their own recusal without intervention from their colleagues or higher courts.

This isn’t the first time Montgomery faced recusal pressure regarding abortion. Last year, he initially refused but later agreed to step aside from a case about an old Arizona law banning nearly all abortions, a decision influenced by unspecified “additional information.”

Ultimately, the other justices upheld the old law’s validity, though the legislature has since repealed it.

Andrew Gaona, attorney for Arizona for Abortion Access, contends that Montgomery’s prior recusal should apply now, especially given Planned Parenthood Advocates’ financial backing of Proposition 139. Montgomery disagreed, insisting that prior recusals are insufficient grounds for disqualification in new matters.

Montgomery reasoned that the current case involves different parties and issues compared to his previous recusal.

As the court continues to receive briefs on the ballot summary’s wording, no ruling date is set. Montgomery’s stance might resurface as Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Melissa Julian recently upheld the inclusion of Proposition 139 on the ballot, despite challenges claiming deceptive petition descriptions.

Arizona Right to Life has not announced if they will seek Supreme Court review following Julian’s decision.