Arizona Attorney General Affirms Phoenix’s Authority on Immigration Enforcement
Arizona Attorney General Chris Mays clarified that the city of Phoenix has the legal right to prohibit federal agents from utilizing city property for immigration raids. She noted that there are no state or federal laws mandating local governments to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement initiatives.
Mays emphasized that local jurisdictions, such as cities and counties, can choose not to participate in federal immigration operations unless compelled by specific legal requirements. Her findings led her to dismiss a complaint submitted by a Republican state lawmaker.
Democratic officials further supported Mays’ stance, asserting that neither state nor federal laws compel Phoenix to provide federal employees with unrestricted access to city resources.
New Policy by Phoenix City Council Aims for Transparency
Last month, the Phoenix City Council passed the Community Transparency Initiative with an 8-1 vote. This policy explicitly prohibits federal authorities from using city property for operations related to “civil law enforcement actions” without city manager approval. Importantly, remaining in the country without legal status is classified as a civil violation.
However, the policy acknowledges certain exceptions. Federal authorities are still permitted to pursue fugitives onto city property, enforce judicial warrants, and are not restricted from entering key locations like the Phoenix Municipal Courthouse or Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport.
Republican Lawmaker Raises Concerns Over City’s Policy
In response to the new policy, Republican state Representative Quang Nguyen filed a complaint with Mays’ office, questioning whether the directive contravenes state law. He warned that any violation could expose the city to lawsuits and financial repercussions.
Nguyen argued that preventing federal agents from accessing vital locations may obstruct the enforcement of federal immigration law, which Arizona law restricts local governments from undermining.
Mays Defends Phoenix’s Policy Against Legal Challenges
Mays countered Nguyen’s assertions, stating that Phoenix’s policy does not restrict federal agents’ abilities to enforce immigration laws. Although Arizona law prohibits local interference in federal operations, it does not mandate active cooperation, she noted.
She further explained that courts have consistently ruled that declining to assist the federal government does not impede its objectives. The attorney general also referenced federal law’s allowance for local governments to opt out of immigration enforcement collaborations.
Debates Over Discrimination and Supremacy Clauses
Nguyen also contended that the city’s policy violates the supremacy clause of the U.S. and Arizona constitutions by undermining federal authority. Mays rebutted this claim, arguing that Phoenix’s policy does not offer special treatment to immigration officials but applies broadly to all “civil law enforcement actions.” She clarified that to classify the policy as discriminatory would require evidence of an unfair advantage granted to state enforcement officials—something not present.
Mays explained that the supremacy clause does not apply in this case since the policy merely regulates city property while not improperly governing federal operations.
City’s Regulatory Authority Upheld Amid Criticism
In his complaint, Nguyen expressed concerns over the lack of a clear process for federal agents to apply for permits regarding the use of municipal land. Mays dismissed these worries, asserting the neutrality of the policy and labeling the potential for discriminatory decisions as speculative. Thus far, no state or federal entity has sought permission to utilize city property for civil law enforcement.
Earlier this month, in response to allegations that Phoenix’s policy breaches state law, the city council underscored its authority as a charter city to regulate property access. Mays concluded that there is ample evidence supporting the legality of the city’s policy.
Similar Policies in Arizona’s Local Jurisdictions
In February, the Pima County Board of Supervisors enacted a policy prohibiting federal agents from accessing county property without a judicial warrant. This measure has also drawn criticism from Republican lawmakers. While Mays has yet to issue a ruling on Pima County’s policy, her endorsement of Phoenix’s initiative could set a precedent affecting other municipalities.
