A squabble between the U.S. Department of Justice and Arizona’s highest court could end up being decided by some federal judges.

The Arizona Supreme Court has rejected a request to let federal government attorneys not licensed here practice in state courts.

Without comment, the justices refused to amend their rules requiring out-of-state attorneys to apply to the high court for temporary permission to handle cases. The rule also forces them — and by extension, the federal government — to pay an application fee, as well as have an Arizona-licensed attorney also working the case.

But that state court action may not be the last word.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Wenker, who submitted the request on behalf of his superiors, suggested in one of his legal filings that he believes at least part of the rule runs afoul of federal constitutional provisions that generally forbid states from regulating activities of the federal government and its employees.

“This rule imposes a substantial burden on the United States and its attorneys,” Wenker wrote. “And we believe that its imposition against the federal government’s representatives is unauthorized.”

And Wyn Hornbuckle, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Phoenix, said his agency is “reviewing what next steps we might be taking.”

Attorneys must first be admitted to practice in Arizona before they can appear in state courts as well as before state boards and agencies.

It is not unusual for an outof-state lawyer to seek to represent a client in an Arizona state proceeding. And rules specifically allow that person to seek admission pro hac vice, which loosely translates from the Latin as “for this one occasion.”

That requires an application, including statements from any state where the lawyer is licensed, that he or she is in good standing. There also must be a local attorney as well as a $391 application fee.

But Wenker said that requirement conflicts with federal law, which allows the U.S. attorney general to send staffers to represent the government’s interests anywhere in the country as long as the lawyer is licensed to practice somewhere in the country. Wenker said that gives the attorney general more flexibility in deciding how to allocate staff.

The proposal drew the ire of Margot Champagne, an immigration lawyer with offices in Prescott and Washington, D.C. She said the request is unfair.

“The proposed rule would ... among other things, give the U.S. Attorney’s offices throughout the United States greater flexibility and efficiency in allocation of resources,” she wrote in her objection. “Why should the nationwide network of U.S. Attorney’s offices be given this while a nationwide private law firm would not?”

Wenker said her contention of “greater flexibility” is correct — and then chided Champagne for saying that is a bad thing.