Arizona — A Maricopa County Superior Court judge has set an expedited legal schedule in a lawsuit challenging the Arizona Rangers’ decision to block a citizen from the organization’s official social media page during a public debate over legislation that could repeal the group’s statutory recognition under Arizona law.
The bill, known as Senate Bill 1071, led by Republican lawmaker Mark Finchem from LD1, would repeal statutes recognizing the Arizona Rangers in state law and remove their exemption from Arizona’s private security-guard licensing requirements.
The Rangers posted a public statement on their Facebook page about their stance on the bill.
Clifford Schomburg, a previous member of the Arizona Rangers, a Coast Guard veteran, and a software engineer with a Master’s Degree in cybersecurity and an MBA, says he was blocked within minutes of commenting on the post, which he said directed readers to alternative viewpoints and reporting about the bill.
“My comment was non-threatening and non-obscene. I did not use profanity, make threats, or engage in harassment. I simply directed readers to publicly available information presenting a different perspective than the organization’s official statement,” said Schomburg.
After being blocked from the Arizona Rangers Facebook page, Schomburg filed a lawsuit in Maricopa County Superior Court. Barry Adams, the Arizona Rangers’ state commander, and Robert Shirley, the Arizona Rangers’ community relations officer, were served with the complaint.
The case, Schomburg v. Arizona Rangers et al. (CV2026-000377), was filed on Jan. 6.
In a supplemental memorandum filed on January 7, Schomburg expanded on his constitutional arguments, asserting that his claims are not limited to free-speech protections. That filing relies on Article 2, Section 5 of the Arizona Constitution, which guarantees “the right of petition, and of the people peaceably to assemble for the common good,” and states that those rights “shall never be abridged.” Schomburg argues that this provision provides an independent basis for relief under Arizona law, separate from — and in addition to — Arizona’s free-speech clause.
The supplemental filing contends that by posting official statements about pending legislation and inviting public engagement on its official social media page, the Arizona Rangers created a forum for civic participation. Schomburg argues that blocking him after he expressed an alternative viewpoint amounted not merely to moderating a single comment, but to excluding him from an ongoing public discussion concerning a matter of public concern, namely legislation affecting the organization’s statutory authority. Arguing that his claim aligns with ‘viewpoint discrimination.’
The filings further argue that blocking a user from an official social media page has broader consequences than deleting a post, because it prevents the blocked individual from viewing future posts, responding to others, or participating in continued debate on the same subject. Schomburg maintains that this exclusion is especially significant because the discussion involved pending legislation.
On January 13, 2026, Schomburg and the Arizona Rangers faced off in court.
At the January 13 hearing, the court declined to grant emergency relief but did not rule on the merits of these arguments. Instead, Judge Cushner denied the defendants’ oral motion to dismiss and directed the parties to proceed through formal briefing. The court set deadlines for a written motion to dismiss, a response, and a reply, and reserved time for both oral argument and a potential preliminary injunction hearing later this spring.
“The Court declined to grant emergency relief at this time, finding the matter did not meet the criteria for an emergency TRO, said Schomburg. “However, if the Arizona Rangers can silence critics while exercising state-granted authority, then any organization could structure itself the same way—collecting the benefits of government power while escaping the constraints of the Arizona Constitution.”
The court’s denial of emergency relief did not resolve the constitutional issues raised in the case. Instead, those questions will be addressed through a full briefing and, if warranted, a preliminary injunction hearing. While denial of an emergency temporary restraining order is procedurally common, the court’s decision to preserve the injunctive track and require detailed briefing signals that the claims remain under active judicial consideration and have not been decided on their merits.
In response to questions asked by Mountain Daily Star about limiting public engagement while opposing pending legislation, The Arizona Rangers, through their attorney Jared Simmons, said, “Free speech is a constitutional right. Anyone can discuss or debate the pending bill and choose which side of it they want to be on. The Ranger organization can choose not to have that debate on its private platform, but they support everyone’s right to express their opinions on appropriate platforms. Even governmental entities don’t allow someone to spray paint obscenities on their buildings in the name of free speech.”
At the heart of the current argument is the looming bill (SB1071), which has many in Arizona wondering what’s going on. Under current law, the Arizona Rangers are statutorily recognized and exempt from certain regulatory requirements that apply to private security companies. SB 1071 would repeal those provisions, effectively removing the Rangers from statute and subjecting members performing security-related functions to the same licensing and oversight standards administered by the Arizona Department of Public Safety.
Sen. Mark Finchem said, “If adopted, the change in law quite simply removes the exemption from accountability. Today, the Arizona Rangers are exempt from ANY accountability like law enforcement agencies such as municipal police agencies and sheriff’s offices, which must meet certain minimum standards under AZPOST and security guard company regulations.”
Supporters of the bill say the change would place the Arizona Rangers under accountability standards similar to those required of other organizations operating in public-safety roles, including compliance with security guard regulations and related oversight. Because Arizona Rangers wear a badge, most of the time carry a weapon, and wear a uniform that conforms to that of most law enforcement agencies in Arizona.
Opponents argue the bill would undermine a historic volunteer organization and limit its ability to assist law-enforcement agencies, particularly in rural areas. Also, according to the Arizona Rangers’ statement, SB 1071 would primarily affect their 501(c)(3) nonprofit fundraising, particularly their ability to generate limited funding through security-related work that supports training, equipment, and readiness. They say losing the statutory exemption would reduce that funding stream and require them to restructure how they raise money.
The consideration of SB 1071 is part of a broader record of legislative and institutional scrutiny of the Arizona Rangers, reflected in multiple documented actions rather than a single dispute.
Most directly, Sen. Finchem sent a letter to the Arizona Rangers’ leadership on January 7, 2026, outlining the origins of SB 1071 and explaining that the bill followed months of receiving documentation and concerns about the organization’s governance and accountability. In that correspondence, Finchem emphasized allegations of misconduct by the Arizona Rangers’ leadership and raised questions about internal investigations.
Letter from State Senator Mark Finchem to Barry Adams, Rangers Board of Directors, and the Rangers council- Jared Simmons, dated Jan. 7, 2026.
Simmons responded to Mountain Daily Star about the allegations in Sen. Finchem’s inquiry, “Senator Finchem was informed that his claims are false, yet he has made no effort to correct them. The Arizona Rangers conducted an internal investigation and cleared both Mr. Adams and Mrs. Penny of any issues. For example, the claim about Mr. Adams disclosing information to Hell’s Angel was based on 20-year-old hearsay that was told to the officer that reported it. The reporting officer did not have personal knowledge of or investigate the statements. Mr. Adams vehemently denies the allegation and has been consistent in his denials. Senator Finchem is relying on false hearsay to publicly defame the entire Arizona Rangers. The Arizona Rangers are recognized throughout the State for volunteer service benefiting law enforcement, youth support, and community service. Many of the Arizona Rangers are current and former members of law enforcement and the military. They devoted their lives to protecting and serving our country and Arizona. They continue this service by volunteering through the Rangers [sic].”
The filings now before the court place the focus on how Arizona law treats organizations that occupy a space between private status and public function. The motion-to-dismiss briefing will determine whether the case proceeds to evidentiary hearings or is resolved as a matter of law. If the case moves forward, the court may be asked to decide whether the Rangers’ statutory recognition, exemptions, and public advocacy impose constitutional limits on how they manage public participation in their communications.
The introduction of SB 1071 itself represents a formal exercise of legislative oversight. Efforts to repeal statutory recognition are uncommon and typically signal heightened review rather than routine policy change.
“This case is about more than a Facebook page,” said Schomburg. “It’s about whether state-recognized organizations that perform law enforcement functions can operate in a constitutional gray zone—wielding authority without accountability. I don’t believe the Arizona Constitution permits that. And I intend to prove it.”
For now, the court has not ruled on the merits of Schomburg’s constitutional claims. Those issues will be addressed through a briefing on the defendants’ motion to dismiss and, if necessary, a preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for later this spring.
At the same time, SB 1071 continues through the legislative process, placing the Arizona Rangers under parallel judicial and legislative scrutiny as questions about authority, accountability, and public participation remain unresolved.
If you want to grab the back story on this situation, give Code 3 News a read.
