An Arizona court ruling says providing court-ordered inpatient psychiatric treatment to people illegally in the country and ruled incompetent to stand trial in criminal cases doesn't violate laws restricting who can receive public benefits.

Out-of-state visitors and new residents may possess and use medical marijuana if recommended by a physician under another state’s laws, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled.

In a key victory for the state's two largest counties, the judges overruled a lower court decision which said the Arizona Constitution requires levies connected with driving to be spent only on road and other transportation projects.

A veteran state lawmaker is carving out what one lawyer calls a large and "blatant'' exemption to the state's public records law.

In a brief order, the justices agreed to hear arguments by Attorney General Mark Brnovich that the Court of Appeals erred last year when it voided a 2012 law which made possession of the drug on campuses a crime.

The unanimous ruling from a three-judge panel contradicts an attorney general’s opinion earlier this year that concluded communications made by public employees or elected officials solely on private electronic devices or private social media accounts are never public record, even if those devices or accounts are used to conduct public business.

Pima County Superior Court Judge James Marner rejected arguments by attorneys for the Board of Regents that disclosure of the documents would be "contrary to the best interests of the state.''

State lawmakers have no legal right to make it a crime for medical marijuana users to possess the drug on college campuses, an attorney for a student who was arrested is arguing to the Arizona Supreme Court.

In a unanimous decision, the judges rejected the arguments by attorneys for the Maricopa County Community College District that their legal status under the federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program means the federal government considers them to be legally present in the country.

The state's high court has agreed to decide whether people can be convicted of soliciting sex with a child even if there never was any actual child to begin with.