Judge rejects bid to block Arizona border measure

Arizona voters passed Proposition 314 by nearly 63% in 2024. The proposition gives Arizona more legal tools and authority to defend its border against illegal immigrants, as well as increases penalties for fentanyl traffickers whose crimes result in deaths. The measure also added eligibility checks for specific public benefits.  

The lawsuit challenged Section 5 of the proposition, which creates a crime of illegal entry into Arizona as well as allows local and state law enforcement, when probable cause exists, to arrest suspected illegal immigrants entering Arizona outside of a lawful port of entry.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit called Section 5 “patently illegal.”

“A state cannot replace Congress’s immigration scheme with its own,” the lawsuit says, adding that “Section 5 violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.”

The lawsuit describes immigration as a “quintessentially federal authority.”

“Congress has created a carefully calibrated immigration system, with detailed procedures that determine whether a person may remain in the United States, when to pursue criminal entry charges in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, and what protections people receive to ensure that they do not face persecution or torture upon removal,” the lawsuit adds.

The plaintiffs are asking U.S. District Judge Michael Liburdi to declare Section 5 unlawful.

Section 5 became enforceable on July 14.

Tara DeGeorge, legal director for the ACLU of Arizona, said the judge’s decision to deny the temporary restraining order against Prop. 314 was “troubling.” She added that “this case is far from settled.”

“We will continue to push for relief to ensure The Florence Project can continue its mission to serve adults and children facing removal proceedings without the state-mandated barriers posed by Section 5, and to prevent the racial profiling, illegal detentions, unlawful deportations that this unconstitutional law invites,” she said.

Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen told The Center Square on Tuesday that the preliminary injunction hearing in the case will occur on Aug. 11.

Petersen, R-Gilbert, said he was not surprised when the judge ruled against blocking the law. He added that Proposition 314 is not about illegal immigration, but rather border security.

“This law is a hedge against a Biden 2.0. President Trump has secured the border. But the law is really for a future scenario where a federal government [has] wide open borders,” he explained.

Petersen noted he was not shocked that the ACLU filed a lawsuit against Proposition 314 because the organization is “anti-border security.”

The ACLU doesn’t “want the state to be able to protect itself in the event that the federal government is not doing its job,” regarding border security, he said.

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes agreed with Petersen that the ACLU did not have standing in the lawsuit.

But Petersen said the Democratic attorney general “did not defend the merits of the case" and opposed the law before it passed.  

Petersen is running against Mayes in the attorney general race in the Nov. 3 general election. 

The Center Square reached out to Mayes’ office, but it declined to comment on the ongoing lawsuit.