The National Federation of Independent Business has filed an amicus brief in a case before the Arizona Supreme Court supporting a consultant from Chandler who argues Arizona’s rules unfairly allow engineers working for manufacturers to avoid licensing requirements while penalizing independent engineers, a dispute that could change how engineering and design professionals are licensed and regulated across Arizona and significantly affect small firms and solo designers.
NFIB Teams Up With Goldwater Institute
In a press release, the National Federation of Independent Business said it filed an amicus brief last Tuesday supporting Greg Mills and his firm, Southwest Engineering Concepts, arguing the Arizona Board of Technical Registration’s requirements put unnecessary burdens on small owners. “A small business owner should not have to get additional licensing to do the same work they would do while working for a bigger company,” NFIB’s Arizona director Chad Heinrich said in the release. The brief was filed alongside the Goldwater Institute.
How The Licensing Fight Started
Mills, who runs Southwest Engineering Concepts in Chandler, says a client complaint led the Arizona Board of Technical Registration to conclude he was performing engineering without state registration and to levy fines and seek a consent agreement. His lawyers argue that Mills designs and tests electronics prototypes for startups, work they say is typically certified to federal or third-party standards rather than run through state “signed and stamped” plans, and that the board’s enforcement is inconsistent. That backstory is laid out by the Institute for Justice and has also been chronicled in local reporting by the Arizona Mirror.
Case Heads To The Arizona Supreme Court
The dispute has now been elevated to the Arizona Supreme Court under the caption Greg Mills and Southwest Engineering Concepts LLC v. State of Arizona, and the court’s case summaries list shows the matter on the 2026 docket. The Supreme Court is set to weigh whether the board’s registration rules and the administrative processes used to prosecute alleged unlicensed practice violate the constitutional protections cited by Mills and his attorneys. Local business reporting has tracked the filings and NFIB’s involvement, including coverage by the Phoenix Business Journal, while the case appears on the court calendar at Arizona Courts.
Why Small Firms Say The Rules Feel Lopsided
Supporters of Mills argue the distinction the board draws, exempting full-time manufacturer engineers while regulating consultants, creates a costly double standard that can push micro-firms out of the market. They say the licensing regime often extends well beyond classic public-safety work, pulling in product-design and prototype projects that are usually subject to independent testing rather than state sign-off. Coverage by IEEE Spectrum and other outlets has documented similar fights in other states and why business groups and legal advocates are watching Arizona’s case closely.
Legal Stakes And What Comes Next
At the heart of the case are competing appeals: the state’s interest in regulating professional titles and protecting safety versus the claims of economic liberty and administrative overreach raised by NFIB and Mills’ legal team. The litigation already has a multi-year history in lower courts, where judges wrestled with doctrines such as exhaustion of administrative remedies. Court records and earlier opinions on Justia show this is simply the latest chapter. The Supreme Court’s review could draw more outside briefs and ultimately decide whether Arizona’s registration rules stand as written or must be narrowed for small consultancies.
