Golf courses will be allowed to host players only after a judge ruled they are an important part of the state’s history, a golf course spokesman said Wednesday.
The ruling by Arizona’s highest court is the latest blow to a trend in which state officials have sought to preserve the state as a world-class golf destination.
The ruling is a victory for the Arizona Board of Regents, which sought to ensure that the state is a destination for the game.
It also is a setback to the state, which has struggled to attract and retain top talent to its golf courses.
It is a decision that could force golf courses to shutter.
The ruling came from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., where the appeals court heard oral arguments last month in a lawsuit brought by the Arizona Department of Natural Resources and the Arizona State Parks and Wildlife Department.
The judges ruled that the courses could be open to golfers, but only if the courts could rule that the course is a historic landmark or that the property was privately owned.
The court did not reach any questions of how long the courts would allow for the courses to reopen.
The parks department argued that the golf course was a historic monument and that it was not subject to eminent domain.
The court disagreed, saying the course was subject to state law that requires it to be managed as a historic site.
“We are pleased with the court’s decision, which we believe was based on a careful reading of the statute and its history,” Jefferson Golf Course spokesman Josh Thomas said in a statement.
“It is clear from the facts that the Board of Trustees and the Department of Parks and Recreation do not intend to reopen the golf courses.”
The courts also ruled that public access to the courses is protected under the Arizona Revised Statutes.
The statute does not specifically address the fate of the courses.
“This decision is not a victory, but it is a step in the right direction for the state of Arizona,” said Larry DeGraw, a professor of political science at the University of Arizona.
“The courts have given the state a strong legal footing to say that this historic designation is legitimate, and that there is no need to reopen.”
The state has struggled with golf courses in recent years.
State officials have said they have faced budget cuts, as well as financial pressures, as the industry struggles to find new ways to generate revenue.
The board has sought to change some aspects of the rule that would have made the courses eligible for state funds, but its efforts have been stalled by a federal appeals court ruling that ruled that Arizona had not yet established a right to eminent-domain protections under the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Indigenous People.
The state is appealing that decision.
The state of Washington, which is a member of the U,N., is also considering a lawsuit.
In the ruling issued Wednesday, the 9st Circuit judges noted that the board had established a process to identify whether a project meets a “compelling public interest” and that that process has included the public’s participation.
The board’s board then developed a proposal to develop and implement a master plan for the project, which it released to the public on July 4, 2016.
The decision comes less than a year after the 911th, a joint U.K.-U.S.-Mexico delegation, toured a number of Arizona golf courses for a news conference in an effort to make the state an ideal location for golf courses and to get the word out about the benefits of the game in Arizona.
That delegation was later joined by the Uplay, a U.J. team that has played at many of the country’s top golf courses before.
The Uplay and the U9, an international team from Germany, played at Arizona’s Phoenix Hills last year.
The teams played on the same day that U.7, an Australian team, and U7 and U8, two teams from France, were all in Arizona for the Nike Masters.
The two teams also played at Augusta National.
The 9th Circuit’s decision in Arizona was written by Judge William A. Hagerty.
The full ruling will be issued Wednesday by Judge David W. Thomas.