In Sears v. Hull, 192 Ariz. 65, 68, P11, 961 P.2d 1013, 1016 (1998), the plaintiffs brought a statutory special action to enjoin the Governor from entering a gaming pact with the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community that the plaintiffs alleged violated the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. 192 Ariz. at 67-68, PP1, 6, 961 P.2d at 1015-16. In rejecting the attempted mandamus challenge, the supreme court noted: The most the plaintiffs can establish is that they disagree with the Governor's interpretation of federal and state statutes . . . . That showing, if made, would not entitle the plaintiffs to mandamus relief. If we were to adopt the plaintiffs' argument, virtually any citizen could challenge any action of any public officer under the mandamus statute by claiming that the officer has failed to uphold or fulfill state or federal law, as interpreted by the dissatisfied plaintiff. Id., at 69, P14, 961 P.2d at 1017. Thus, according to Sears, mandamus is not an appropriate method to use to obtain a definition of duties that are otherwise subject to dispute.