Arizona’s Attorney General Weighs Lawsuit Timing on Immigration Law
Arizona Attorney General Chris Mays has declared that it is premature to initiate a lawsuit against a newly enacted 2024 law permitting local police to arrest illegal immigrants, especially as no arrests have yet occurred.
Earlier this month, the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing pro bono legal assistance to individuals facing deportation, filed a lawsuit against the law. They argue that the legislation undermines federal authority and should be permanently blocked as it violates existing laws. The organization has called for a temporary halt to the law while the lawsuit is pending. However, Mays, along with Republican legislative leaders who support the 2024 law, argue against this freeze, labeling it an inappropriate course of action.
In a related context, two years ago, a significant 61% of voters backed Proposition 314, known as the “Secure Borders Act.” This ballot measure introduced new criminal penalties in state law, notably for using fraudulent documents to obtain public benefits or employment, as well as for individuals convicted of knowingly distributing lethal fentanyl.
One of the most contentious aspects of the law, referred to in court documents as “Article 5,” criminalizes unauthorized crossing of Arizona’s southern border outside of official entry ports. A first-time offender is subject to a Class 1 misdemeanor, which carries a penalty of up to six months in prison.
In anticipation of potential legal challenges, the Republican lawmakers who crafted Proposition 314 postponed the effective date of Section 5 until 60 days after a similar law enacted in Texas, which was then embroiled in litigation. Following a federal appeals court reinstatement of the Texas law in May, the Arizona law was reactivated on July 14.
Despite the vocal criticism surrounding the legislation, Mays has begun to defend it in court. She stated that too many uncertainties remain regarding the law’s implementation, even as Democrats pointed out that the Florence Project lacks clients charged under Article 5, raising questions about whether attorneys can effectively challenge the law. They argued that claims regarding the law leading to unconstitutional arrests are speculative at best.
To reinforce its legal stance, the Florence Project alerted the court that the law could trigger a wave of arrests within the state, potentially complicating the legal representation of clients and forcing lawyers to cover greater distances for hearings.
However, Mays contended that it is too early to assess the law’s potential impact and suggested that any arrests could predominantly occur in southern Arizona. The law provides a detailed list of arrest criteria, including witnessing a suspected illegal border crossing, video evidence, or other constitutionally sufficient probable cause. Critics argue that these criteria may invite discriminatory practices in arrests.
Nonetheless, Mays dismissed concerns that the law would target long-standing residents or immigrants, noting that the law only applies to those suspected of crossing the border after July 14. She also highlighted the uncertainty surrounding law enforcement’s resource allocation for monitoring the southern border.
Ultimately, Mays cautioned that blocking the law would disregard the preferences of Arizonans who voted in favor of it two years prior and would constrain law enforcement’s capabilities. The brief submitted in support of the law emphasized, “There is a strong public interest in preventing dangerous cross-border crimes such as human trafficking and drug smuggling,” arguing that the restrictions posed by Section 5 would hinder the methods deemed necessary for enhancing state safety by both the Arizona Legislature and its citizens.
