Arizona Constitutional Case Reshapes the Legal Limits of Disciplinary Power for Private Organizations
Historic Arizona Case Affirms Due Process Rights Against Private Professional Organizations
I am blessed to share that I have filed the first lawsuit in Arizona’s history permitting a constitutional due process claim for damages against a private organization, (the Arizona Association of REALTORS®, which is the largest professional organization in the state). The Yavapai County case, *DeVries v. Arizona Association of REALTORS® (“AAR”)*, raises urgent questions about the limits of private power, the reach of constitutional protections such as free speech, and what due process means when private organizations exercise control that amounts to an “economic necessity” for professionals across Arizona (the decision also provides key persuasive precedent for other jurisdictions).
The Facts of This Case
Chad DeVries, a REALTOR® in Arizona with a thirty year spotless record, filed a lawsuit against AAR (in May of 2024) after being subjected to professional discipline by the organization. AAR unlawfully found DeVries in violation of Article 10 of the REALTOR® Code of Ethics for posting satirical memes aligned with his Christian and conservative beliefs on his personal social media accounts. As you can see from the few examples provided below, none of the memes concerned his “professional services” or “employment practices”—which are factual conditions that must exist before any REALTOR® can be disciplined under Article 10 of the Code of Ethics.
Regardless of the fact that Chad clearly didn’t violate the Code of Ethics based on its plain terms—because AAR is woke and disagrees with Chad’s viewpoints—it levied disciplinary sanctions against him in an attempt to silence and punish him, including mandatory continuing education, fines, and a possible suspension and expulsion of his REALTOR® membership.
Why Being a REALTOR® Matters
One of the perks of being a REALTOR®, is that membership provides access to the Multiple Listing Service (“MLS”)—which is a tool that is essential for practicing residential real estate professionals across the United States. Because nearly all residential real estate transactions in Arizona rely on MLS access and because AAR has general disciplinary authority across local associations throughout Arizona, AAR effectively controls the ability to earn a living for all residential real estate professionals by providing access to the MLS.
Initially, Chad sought relief based on breach of contract and First Amendment free speech violations. However, after the court dismissed the First Amendment claim (on the grounds that AAR is a private organization not subject to constitutional speech protections), DeVries filed a motion to amend his complaint to instead assert claims for violation of due process rights and conspiracy to violate those rights.
The amended complaint seeks injunctive relief as well as compensatory and punitive damages, arguing that AAR’s disciplinary procedures lack the procedural protections required by due process, particularly given the economic consequences of losing access to the MLS.
Because the court has permitted his due process claims to proceed, DeVries has now successfully advanced a novel legal theory: that AAR’s control over access to the real estate profession makes it subject to constitutional due process requirements, even though it is a private entity.
Indeed, just a few weeks ago, the National Association of REALTORS® (“NAR”) (the largest professional private organization in the United States), which charters (i.e., has absolute control over) AAR, changed its position in direct response to Chad’s lawsuit—so that no REALTOR® (of which there are 1.5 million across the United States) can ever again be sanctioned for exercising their free speech rights in a manner that is unrelated to their “employment practices” or “professional services.” Put another way, AAR’s parent has admitted that Chad was unlawfully disciplined.
The Core of the Legal Battle
After the trial court rejected Chad’s First Amendment claim, he filed a motion to amend his lawsuit to include two new claims: (1) violation of due process and (2) conspiracy to violate due process, along with a request for punitive damages.
DeVries argues that AAR threatens to effectively end his real estate career through its disciplinary procedures, which operate independently of any governmental oversight. His claim rests on the idea that membership in AAR creates an “economic necessity”—in other words, that membership in AAR and, thereby, access to the MLS is essential to earning a living as a residential real estate agent in Arizona.
A key piece of evidence supporting this point is AAR’s own statewide professional standards agreement, a contract which grants it the authority and obligation to enforce ethics violations and impose penalties—including suspension and expulsion—that apply statewide across all local REALTOR® associations.
A Clash Over Precedent
In response to the motion to amend, the Arizona Association of REALTORS® objected, arguing that the due process claims are “futile,” citing *Redding v. SEVRAR*, a recent unpublished decision from the Arizona Court of Appeals (Division 1) that rejected a due process claim against a similar private organization (the Southeast Valley Regional Association of REALTORS® (“SEVRAR”), in Maricopa County). In that case, the court found that constitutional due process protections do not apply to private associations like SEVRAR because disciplinary decisions against Realtors® do not involve government action.
But DeVries countered that *Redding* does not control his suit. He relied instead on *Blende v. Maricopa County Medical Society*, a trio of landmark Arizona Supreme Court decisions from the 1960s. In *Blende*, the Court recognized that due process requirements apply to private associations when membership is essential to practicing a profession—what the Court called an “economic necessity”. Importantly, the plaintiffs in *Redding* did not allege that membership in SEVRAR created an “economic necessity”—a key distinction as compared to Chad’s case.
In response to AAR’s objection, DeVries argued that, just like the hospital staff privileges created by the Maricopa County Medical Society in *Blende* (who sought injunctive and declaratory relief, not damages), access to the MLS (over which AAR exercises exclusive control via contract) is necessary to operate professionally in Arizona’s residential real estate industry. He also asserted that AAR’s disciplinary reach is so extensive and unavoidable that it effectively acts as a gatekeeper to the profession, such that it must be held to constitutional standards.
About a week after NAR changed its position, the Yavapai County Superior Court agreed with Mr. DeVries, permitting his due process claims to proceed and, along with them, the potential for punitive damages against all parties (including the individuals who filed ethics complaints against Chad).
According to my research, this is the first time in Arizona history that a private organization is been held liable for constitutional due process violations without any “joint action” with the government.
The case opens the door for other professionals in fields dominated by private associations—medicine, law, or even private unions—to assert similar claims if they can show that membership is essential to earning a living.
Moreover, the court’s willingness to consider punitive damages underscores the seriousness of the issues at stake. It suggests that private organizations cannot arbitrarily discipline their members to silence their viewpoints—especially when doing so seeks to deprive them of their livelihoods.
At its core, the ruling recognizes that even private entities—when they wield monopoly-like control over access to a profession—must operate within the bounds of constitutional due process.
In short, *DeVries v. AAR* isn’t just a fight over a real estate license. It’s a test of whether the Constitution’s promise of fair treatment under law extends beyond the walls of government—and into the boardrooms of private associations that hold the keys to people’s careers.
If you would like to know more about this case, I encourage you to check out my recent appearance on the B.S. Free MD Podcast, which is available here.
Otherwise, if you would like to support The Gavel Project (a 501(C)(3) public charity), please consider becoming a paid subscriber or making a tax deductible donation by visiting TGP’s website.