The Court House News Service recently released a story on Death Row inmates in Arizona along with the state's office of the federal public defender stating that they are suing the U.S. Department of Justice because they believe that they are not receiving proper post-conviction representation and that the DOJ's process for certifying a state representation system is inadequate. The lawsuit specifically attacks the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1966, alleging that "the U.S. attorney general has far too much discretion" under the law as amended in 2006. "Once the Justice Department approves the states' processes" for appointing counsel for state post-conviction review of capital cases, "the timeline for habeas corpus proceedings is shortened and judicial review of state judgments is curtailed ...."

The inmates filed a 37-page complaint highlighting that DOJ's implementing regulation impose restrictions on timelines for filings, along with other complaints supporting their argument. The Arizona Attorney General's application for certification of that State's process is three pages, "stating the process there is adequate, despite numerous public comments decrying the process, including from the plaintiffs". They complain that the rules put the burden on the defendants to prove that system is insufficient rather than on the state to prove it is sufficient.

Not mentioned in the article is the fact that the Ninth Circuit decided in 2016 that (1) defense organizations do not have standing to challenge the regulations; and (2) a challenge by death-row inmates is not "ripe" for review until DOJ has actually applied the regulations in making a certification decision. See Habeas Corpus Resource Center v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 816 F.3d 1241, 1244 (2016), cert. denied 197 L.Ed.2d 519 (2017). This ruling is binding precedent in the Arizona District Court. CJLF's amicus brief in that case is here.