PHOENIX — Federal officials have apparently chosen a company with no experience conducting environmental reviews to perform one for a proposed Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility in Surprise.

In a Friday court filing, the Department of Homeland Security said it has retained a contractor to assist in the review, part of a deal with the state Attorney General’s Office to forestall a lawsuit. That deal prevents ICE from detaining people in the warehouse until DHS can prove it can house up to 1,500 people.

That filing does not list who will be conducting the review. But the city of Surprise, in a web post, said its staffers met with a GardaWorld representative who is seeking information for the assessment.

GardaWord has already signed a $313.4 million contract with DHS to renovate andoperate the facility. The agreement even provides for a possible extension through early 2029, making it worth more than $700 million.

GardaWorld, mostly known for things like providing security guards and operating a fleet of armored cars, referred all questions to Homeland Security.

That agency provided only a prepared statement about its focus on removing “the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens from the United States and is always evaluation the best methods to do so.”

As to the status of the Surprise facility, the statement effectively acknowledges that a federal court agreement with Attorney General Kris Mayes prevents anyone from being housed there until the agreed-to assessment is complete.

“DHS is moving swiftly to utilize EXISTING detention space with our state and county partners,” the statement reads. There was no answer to the question of GardaWorld’s experience — or even confirmation that company is doing the assessment.

Mayes filed suit in April after ICE purchased the facility. That federal ownership stripped city officials of any power to use their own zoning and other laws to restrict its operation.

But the attorney general is instead using the National Environmental Policy Act to require an assessment — if not a full-blown environmental impact statement. And Mayes has made it clear she believes that such an assessment will conclude that the site is inappropriate for such a facility.

That environmental impact is not just about the impact of the facility, like how its operation would affect the city’s sewage. The warehouse itself also sits across the street from a hazardous materials storage warehouse where chemical leaks or explosions are possible.

It is true, Mayes conceded in April, that there already are nearby homes where residents also would be affected by such an occurrence.

“But the major distinction is the sheer number of people who will be housed in this facility and can’t get out,” the attorney general said. “If this thing blows up, they will be locked in that facility with no way of getting out.”

That, she said, will create additional pressures on local fire departments and emergency responders.

And Mayes said the warehouse, if allowed to be used to house ICE detainees, will use so much water that it could leave firefighters without what they need to battle an explosion or blaze at the chemical facility.

The lawsuit initially drew derision from a representative from ICE.

“Let’s be hones about what is happening,” the statement read.

“This isn’t about the environment,” it said. “It’s about trying to stop President Trump from making America safe.”

And the representative dismissed the need for formal environmental studies.

“Prior to purchasing this site, ICE carefully evaluated the use of existing facilities to help minimize environmental impacts,” the statement said.

But facing a possible federal court order delaying — or even halting — the project, Homeland Security said it would provide the assessment. It also agreed not to open the facility until the assessment was completed. And the agency promised to provide regular updates to the court.

That latest update, filed Friday, is where Homeland Security said it had retained a contractor “and has begun working with the contractor.”

“The environmental review remains ongoing,” Julian Kurtz, an attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice, told Judge Susan Brnovich.

The post DHS says environmental review of Surprise ICE facility is progressing first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.

Key Points:

• Gov. Katie Hobbs fears border czar Tom Homan’s threat to flood sanctuary cities with federal agents could lead to problems in Arizona

• Homan criticized “sanctuary cities” that refuse to cooperate with ICE, vowing to deploy more agents in those areas

• Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes is suing Homeland Security over its planned migrant detention facility

Gov. Katie Hobbs said she believes border czar Tom Homan’s threat to “flood” the streets of “sanctuary cities” with federal agents could lead to the same kinds of problems in Arizona that left two people dead in Minneapolis.

Homan, in Arizona this past week, lashed out at what he called “sanctuary cities” who have refused to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement in their efforts to deport people who the government says entered this country illegally.

“You will see more agents in your neighborhoods, because you forced us into this position,” he told those attending the Border Security Expo.’

Hobbs said she does not believe that there are actually sanctuary cities in Arizona, something her press aide defines as those who actively interfere with federal enforcement of immigration law in violation of state laws.

Still, she conceded that Homan is taking a broad approach, one that may not have room for the nuance of particular cities and counties within states not actively cooperating with ICE. And it is these communities who could find themselves with new deployments of immigration agents.

And, that, Hobbs told Capitol Media Services, concerns her.

“What I hope this doesn’t signal is a return to the kind of enforcement practices that ended up getting two people in Minnesota killed because they were more focused on indiscriminately rounding people up and not on keeping us safe,” she said. “Because those kinds of tactics, they undermine the safety of the communities and law enforcement.”

Homan’s comments come the same week that Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes essentially gave the green light to city councils and the board of supervisors to adopt policies that specifically bar cooperation with ICE, particularly if they are involved in the non-criminal roundup of those without documents.

Mayes, in a formal legal opinion, acknowledged there are provisions in both state and federal law that forbid local communities from actively interfering with immigration enforcement efforts.

But Mayes, in an extensive analysis of the laws, said there is nothing that actually requires local governments to help in those roundups. In fact, cities and counties can even make their buildings off limits to civil immigration enforcement and bar ICE agents from using city property, including parking lots, as staging areas, she said.

What it ultimately all boils down to, Mayes said, is the U.S. Constitution.

“Federal government cannot require state cooperation without running afoul of the Tenth Amendment,” she said. And the attorney general bristled at the idea that the border czar would threaten communities that are acting within what she believes to be their lawful authority.

“Arizona isn’t going to be intimidated by threats from Homan,” Mayes told Capitol Media Services. “Pima County and the city of Phoenix have enacted lawful measures that reflect the views of their communities.”

Hobbs, for her part, said it’s not up for her to decide when immigration efforts go beyond the reasonable. 

“I think that’s for the courts to decide,” she said. “And I hope it doesn’t get there.”

Hobbs said, though, that one way to avoid that confrontation between federal and local authorities is cooperation and coordination.

“I’ll just go to the Surprise warehouse facility as an example,” the governor said.

There, ICE and Homeland Security simply announced that it had purchased a vacant 418,400-square-foot industrial warehouse to house up to 1,500 people detained on immigration violations.

City officials pronounced themselves unable to do anything about it because they have no authority over zoning or land use of federal facilities.

Mayes is trying a different tactic, filing suit in federal court. She contends that Homeland Security did not comply with various immigration and environmental laws.

That case is still pending, though the plans for the warehouse conversion appear to have stalled, at least temporarily.

Hobbs said it should not have had to come to this kind of confrontation.

“When the federal government comes in and they just make this decision and don’t work to gain the support of the community or even talk to the community about the impact that will have, that undermines safety all across the board,” she said.

That also applies to the possibility of some Arizona communities flooded, to use Homan’s term, with ICE agents, the governor said.

“They should be looking at ways that they can work with communities, whether it’s on how they’re going to house migrants or how they’re going to go in and round them up,” she said. “And the more they can do to cooperate and not have cities or jurisdictions feel like they’re just coming in and just taking over, that’s better for everybody.”

And that, said Hobbs, includes local communities — and the peace officers that serve them.

“Our law enforcement are doing everything they can to keep our communities safe,” she said. “And they don’t need other law enforcement coming in from the outside undermining that.”

Mayes has her own fears of what might happen if Homan orders federal agents into the state based on his view that cities and counties are not cooperating.

“Arizonans across the state do not want to see the disastrous policies implemented by ICE in cities like Minneapolis that do nothing to ensure public safety and in fact endanger everyone,” she said.

The governor expressed similar concerns when asked if she fears that having federal agents patrolling streets in Arizona would interfere with local law enforcement.

“Absolutely,” she said. “I don’t think anyone wants to see that here.”

The post Hobbs: Border Czar’s threat to flood sanctuary cities could put Arizona at risk first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.

Key Points: 

• GOP lawmaker wants attorney general to investigate cities over ordinances regarding ICE

• Probe would focus on when restricting ICE from city properties

• Tucson mayor contends ordinance is legal

Contending the move is illegal, a Republican lawmaker wants Attorney General Kris Mayes to investigate – and presumably bring legal action against – cities that refuse to allow Immigration and Customs Enforcement to operate on their property.

Rep. Quang Nguyen acknowledges that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the “commandeering” of state resources. And that, said the Prescott Valley Republican, bars the federal government from compelling states “to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.”

But Nguyen points out that there also is a state law which bars cities from adopting policies that “limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.” And that, he said in a letter to Mayes, preempts the ability of cities to ban ICE from using municipal property, even as a staging area.

The request comes just days after the Phoenix City Council voted 8-1 to ban ICE from using city-owned land to stage operations or process detainees unless it first gets the city’s permission.

Phoenix, however, is not alone. It actually follows a similar unanimous vote by Tucson.

What makes the letter by Nguyen to Mayes important is it is more than just a complaint.

It begins the formal process which allows any legislator to force the attorney general to investigate potentially illegal actions by a local government.

More to the point, if Mayes were to conclude that a policy runs afoul of state law, she could order a city to rescind it or, at the very least, seek a ruling from the Arizona Supreme Court. And if her finding of illegality is upheld, the law requires the state treasurer to withhold some state aid until the offending ordinance is repealed.

Both ordinances follow a series of decisions by ICE to go into cities in efforts to sweep up people they say are not legally entitled to be here, often using city property to stage their raids. That has resulted in not just demonstrations against what ICE is doing but also reports of agents picking up and holding those who are U.S. citizens or otherwise legally present.

Tucson Mayor Regina Romero, discussing the proposal before it was approved, said residents and the immigrant community “deserve certainty that our city-owned properties and resources will be used” to deliver quality of life services, not a place where they can be “confronted or attacked or harassed” by federal agents.

Nguyen, in his complaint to Mayes, said such ordinances do not just reflect “passive non-cooperation” with ICE.

“Rather, it affirmatively restricts the use of city property for core enforcement functions such as staging, processing, and operational coordination,” he wrote, unless ICE first gets city approval.

In the case of Phoenix and Tucson, that would come from the city manager.

Nguyen said that’s not acceptable.

“This policy conditions federal and intergovernmental law enforcement activity on local approval,” he wrote to Mayes. Nguyen said it would make the city manager a gatekeeper, controlling the manner, timing, and feasibility of enforcement operations.

“This discretionary approval structure creates a substantial risk that enforcement will be delayed, impeded, or denied altogether,” Nguyen wrote. 

And, he said any policy that withholds access runs afoul of the state law that bars cities from limiting “the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.”

Then there’s the issue of federal preemption.

“While local governments are not required to affirmatively assist federal law enforcement, they may not adopt measures that interfere with or stand as an obstacle against the execution of federal law,” Nguyen told Mayes. “By restricting access to city-controlled property through discretionary local approval, the regulation risks crossing the line from permissible non-cooperation into impermissible interference with federal enforcement operations.”

Tucson intends to dispute Nguyen’s contention that its ordinance is illegal.

“The policy was crafted and adopted in accordance with state and federal law,” said Roy Lusk, the Tucson city attorney.

That is in line with views expressed by Romero in a memo she wrote before the city adopted the ordinance.

“While immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, municipalities retain authority over how city property, facilities, and staff are used,” she said.

The ordinance also directs city officials to erect signs to tell federal enforcement officials they cannot use property “for civil law enforcement or civil immigration enforcement.”

That emphasis on civil is important. The Tucson policy says there is no need for federal agents to request permission “for the service of a lawful judicial warrant or where exigent circumstances objectively exist.”

Tucson council member Miranda Schubert said after the council vote that enacting the ordinance was the right thing to do.

“This action is important because it shows we’re literally doing everything we can on the City Council to, again, ensure that people feel safe, that they feel welcome in public spaces,” she said,

When the issue was first discussed in January, several council members expressed strong feelings about ICE and city cooperation.

Paul Cunningham said that he feels “less safe” when he hears about ICE operations in Tucson.

“It’s important for us to send a message, and let them know (that) not only are we taking remedial action because our people don’t feel safe with them running around like a bunch of gestapo goons in our community,” he said.

Under state law, Mayes has 30 days from the time she believes she has a complete complaint to issue a ruling. If she decides the ordinance violates state law, the city can seek court review.

The post Phoenix, Tucson face attorney general probe over ICE activities first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.

Key Points: 

• ICE would be alerted as an arrest is taking place

• Democrats express concerns the measure could trigger violence

• Republicans say SB1055 will make Arizona streets safer

Republican lawmakers are moving to force state and local police to take a more active role in reporting people who are not in the country legally.

Legislation approved earlier this week by the Senate on a party-line vote would require any agency arresting a possible illegal immigrant to notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement. And that would be “immediately,” before any adjudication of guilt. That amounts to ICE being called to come to the location where an arrest is being made.

But Democrats fear that what’s in SB1055 would not just sweep up others but actually result in dangerous confrontations on the street with what Sen. Analise Ortiz, D-Phoenix, calls “a murderous force” of agents and what Sen. Lauren Kuby, D-Tempe, called a “lawless agency.”

That, in turn, brought a sharp retort from Sen. Jake Hoffman. The Queen Creek Republican read off a list of people killed by those not here legally, calling them “the actual murderous force.”

“Democrats in this chamber are arguing that those illegal alien criminals should be allowed to roam free on our streets,” Hoffman said. “Anyone who stands up for those people, you’re disgusting.”

Senate Majority Leader John Kavanagh said the concerns of foes are overblown.

“All it does is require cooperation between different levels of government, something that makes government effective,” said the Fountain Hills Republican. “People who are accused of being here illegally need to be brought to justice.”

That, he said, means bringing people before a hearing officer, saying they will receive “due process.”

“And whatever the result is, that’s what we do,” Kavanagh said. “And this facilitates it.”

Senate Minority Leader Priya Sundareshan said her problems with SB1055 begin with the fact that it is just the arrest that triggers a call to ICE.

“So there has been no evidence provided, jury trial provided, or anything that proves that anyone that might have been arrested is, in fact, guilty,” said the Tucson Democrat.

Ortiz said it’s also important to remember that any “arrest” would trigger that call to ICE to show up. And that, she said, even could include a citation for jaywalking, with cities like Phoenix now issuing them to offenders.

Hoffman said he sees it from a different perspective.

“This is once someone has been arrested, then, yes, we do want our law enforcement in Arizona to coordinate with ICE if they’re an illegal alien,” he said. “Even if you support illegal immigration, it’s absurd that you would not want the criminals who come over illegally removed from this country.”

But it’s the mechanics of how the measure would work, Ortiz said, that could create a hazardous situation.

It starts, she said, with that requirement for immediate notification of ICE. That, she said, means agents showing up at the arrest scene.

“Anyone in the surrounding community is then put in danger by masked, armed, Call of Duty ‘cosplayers’ who are eager to use their weapons,” she said. “We have seen that happen, whether it’s a gun, whether it is chemical irritants, whether it’s beating somebody to a pulp on the concrete.”

Hoffman, however, insisted that the legislation would create safer communities.

“The safest place for a transfer to occur is, statistically, when they’re already in custody,” he said.

“It’s Looney Tunes for anyone to think otherwise,” Hoffman said. “It poses the least risk to the rioters, activists who are protesting and getting in the way of and trying to run over ICE agents.”

He also said nothing in the legislation would overturn “longstanding professional practices of law enforcement” which say that transfers of arrested people should occur “at the time most safe to the public.”

And Hoffman lashed out at Ortiz and her description of federal immigration agents as a “murderous force.”

“The actual ‘murderous force’ are the dangerous illegal criminal aliens coming into the country,” he said.

But Kuby said the record suggests otherwise.

“They’re using illegal, excessive use of force, often against U.S. citizens who are denied due process,” she said, citing what she called were the “murders” of Alex Pretti and Renee Goode in Minneapolis.

“Killing people in the streets, this is what we are seeing,” Kuby said. “So, by empowering a lawless agency such as ICE this bill … would make our public less safe, not more, safe.”

She also cited the decision last month by the Tucson City Council which voted to limit immigration enforcement on city-owned and city-controlled property and buildings, to prevent agents from using them as a staging area for mass arrests. That decision, said Kuby, was “due to the glut of untrained, undisciplined federal agents who are terrorizing communities across our country.” 

Hoffman responded by saying that Kuby cited only two people in her complaints against ICE. And he argued that even in those cases their killings were justified.

He said Pretti “was armed and attempting to obstruct ICE operations,” though the multiple videos of his killing appear to tell a different story, with Pretti, licensed to carry a concealed weapon holding only a cell phone in his hand. And Hoffman said that Goode “was attempting to run over an ICE agent with their vehicle.”

“In the real world, that’s called attempted murder with a vehicle,” Hoffman said.

Then he listed a series of names of individuals who were killed by people not here legally, people he called “the actual murderous force.”

“And yet we’ve got people over here arguing that they should stay on our streets,” Hoffman said.

Ortiz said there’s another problem with the bill, saying it might deter some crime victims who are not here legally from calling police.

Consider, she said, a restaurant owner who was robbed but then sees the suspect. And if the suspect turns out to lack legal status, then it would trigger SB1055.

“ICE is then going to show up, which then puts the business owner in danger and anybody eating at the establishment in danger, people who are innocent and have nothing to do with the crime,” Ortiz said.

Ditto, she said, of domestic violence survivors.

“Oftentimes, what we’re seeing is that abusers will use your status as a way to scare you out of calling the police,” Ortiz said.

“This bill will only lead to increased instances of ICE either showing up at somebody’s home because they called the police needing help or a business in our community,” she said. “We know no one patronizing that business is going to be safe if ICE is called to deal with a potential crime.”

In some ways, what is in SB1055 is an extension of what lawmakers approved in 2010 as part of the controversial SB1070 from that year.

That measure was designed to give state and local police more power to detain those who are not in this country legally.

Many provisions were voided in a historic 2012 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The high court said the state lacks the authority to prosecute those seeking work in Arizona without being in this country legally and those failing to carry federally issued registration cards.

It also ruled that Arizona cannot allow warrantless arrests if there is “probable cause” that a person committed an offense that makes them removable from the country under federal law. The justices said all three provisions illegally conflict with – and are preempted by federal law.

However, the court said there was nothing inherently wrong with SB1070’s requirement that police make a reasonable attempt, “when practicable,” to check the immigration status of those they have stopped. That part of the law remains on the books.

The post Bill requiring local cops to notify ICE of an immigrant arrest advances first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.

Key Points: 

• Sen. John Kavanagh proposes legislation to criminalize warning others about police presence

• The bill aims to plug a loophole in existing laws that only punish physical obstruction of police

• Critics argue the law could lead to excessive prosecution for protected speech activities

Blowing a whistle to alert others when you see an Immigration and Customs Enforcement van in the area could land you in jail.

Ditto bells, gestures, written messages or even electronic communications.

It’s all part of legislation by Sen. John Kavanagh to keep people from preventing the arrest of someone wanted by law enforcement.

But less clear is exactly which acts would become crimes under the proposal by the Fountain Hills Republican.

Kavanagh tells Capitol Media Services the aim is to plug a loophole in the law.

“I saw there were people warning people about ICE coming,” he said. But Kavanagh said none of that is illegal under existing laws which make it illegal to “obstruct” police, something he said requires someone to physically intercede.

“It didn’t deal with warning,” he said.

His SB 1635 is designed to fill that gap.

The senator said nothing in his measure, scheduled for a hearing this week, is designed to interfere with anyone’s First Amendment rights. He said it’s meant to apply only when someone alerts one or more individuals who the person doing the signaling is known to be sought by the police.

By contrast, Kavanagh said, it wouldn’t apply to those who blew a whistle or gave any other warning simply because they saw ICE come down the street.

“Free speech protects that behavior,” he said.

But Sen. Analise Ortiz said she has a hard time believing that what Kavanagh wants the Senate Judiciary Committee to enact is as limited as he claims. The Phoenix Democrat said it leaves too much discretion to prosecutors who she said are too quick to do things like label people who are simply watching ICE as “domestic terrorists.”

“It would absolutely lead to people who simply were sharing information on social media or blowing a whistle in their neighborhood being hit with a Class 1 misdemeanor,” Ortiz said, which carries up to six months in county jail and a $2,500 fine.

And there’s something else that Ortiz told Capitol Media Services makes her question what is the real intent of the legislation: Kavanagh actually singled her out for special mention in a press release when he introduced the measure.

“As President Trump works to remove criminal illegal aliens from our communities, radical Democrat lawmakers, including Sen. Analise Ortiz, have chosen to interfere and help criminals evade arrest,” Kavanagh wrote. “Arizona is not a state of anarchy, and we will not tolerate elected officials undermining active law enforcement operations.”

All that stems from an incident last August where Ortiz shared a social media post from someone else alerting people that ICE agents were outside an elementary school on the southwest side of Phoenix. Ortiz said this is no different than her resharing other posts about things affecting her community, citing another one about a Maryvale Resource Fair.

But what happened this time, Ortiz said, is that LibsOfTikTok, a site that posts conservative viewpoints, posted that Ortiz “is actively impeding and doxxing ICE by posting their live locations on Instagram.”

Things escalated from there.

“Yes,” Ortiz responded online. “When ICE is around, I will alert my community to stay out of the area and I’m not f****** scared of you nor Trump’s masked goons.”

Republican Sen. Jake Hoffman of Queen Creek interjected himself into the dispute, filing a complaint accusing Ortiz of violating Senate rules against “disorderly behavior.” And Sen. Shawnna Bolick, a Republican from Phoenix who chairs the Ethics Committee is now asking for a federal investigation to determine if what Ortiz is doing amounts to “interference with federal law enforcement operations.”

Neither inquiry has gone anywhere. And Bolick, after filing her request with federal prosecutors, never responded to questions about how publishing the location of something occurring in public violates the law.

And that leads back to Kavanagh resurrecting the incident as a reason to push for a new state law.

“Sen. Kavanagh knows it’s unconstitutional,” Ortiz said of the new legislation. “He’s only doing this to make a splash in the headlines and, more importantly, to try to scare people from speaking out when they see masked, armed, violent men in their neighborhood.”

All that goes to the question of whether warning people about the presence of ICE — or any other law enforcement — is constitutionally protected and beyond the reach of state lawmakers.

“People have a right to blow a whistle anywhere they want,” Ortiz said.

True, Kavanagh conceded — but only up to a point.

For example, he said, consider someone who works at a grocery store and knows that people working in the back are not here legally. If that person then warned those people that ICE was out front with a warrant, they would be breaking the law under his legislation.

So why would Kavanagh cite what Ortiz did — which he seems to concede is protected by the First Amendment — as a reason he cited for why the law should be changed?

Kavanagh said it was her actions that “motivated me” to introduce the legislation.

“I think her behavior should be illegal,” he said. “But the Constitution said that’s too general and, therefore, free speech.”

The post New law could criminalize alerting others about ICE presence first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.

Key Points: 

• Attorney general probes ICE facility under state public nuisance law

• Joins federal lawmakers in concerns over impact to community 

• Federal compliance with state law still an open question 

Attorney General Kris Mayes is probing Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s proposed 1,500-bed detention facility in Surprise for potential violations of public nuisance law. 

In a letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Mayes asked for information on the facility’s potential impact on local schools, traffic, noise, water supply, waste disposal, medical care and workload for local first responders. 

Mayes’ letter follows a line of information inquiries from members of Arizona’s congressional delegation. By adding to the pile, she equips her own inquiry with some legal teeth. 

Unlike her predecessors, Mayes has taken a broad interpretation with public nuisance law, and has led the legal charge on a variety of public issues like excessive groundwater pumping, a proposed aluminum plant and now the “seven football field sized prison” ICE plans to “plop down in the middle of the city of Surprise.”

“Kristi Noem, in her own communications, noted that they work within state and federal regulations and laws, so she intends to work within state laws,” Mayes said. “And I would assume she’s not going to have a problem abiding by our nuisance law.” 

Mayes’ letter, sent Feb. 9, begins by noting that the proposed processing and detention facility, located at Sweetwater Avenue and Dysart Road in Surprise, is in the middle of a residential area. And, despite being located in Surprise, Mayes pointed out the department had kept city officials and residents in the dark about the project. 

In a statement, Surprise city officials said, “The City was not aware that there were efforts underway to purchase the building, was not notified of the transaction by any of the parties involved and has not been contacted by DHS or any federal agency about the intended use of the building.” 

Mayes referenced a Surprise City Council meeting on Feb. 3 where more than 80 residents “spoke at length of the project’s harm to their community,” with overlapping concerns about potential impacts on schools, water, waste, trash, medical services, property values and economic development. She then framed the same concerns within the constructs of public nuisance law and sent a list of demands for more information. 

Within the letter, Mayes asked for more details on how the federal agency plans to ensure that the construction and operations of the center do not interfere with the functions of nearby schools like Dysart High School.

She also raised questions about the number of vehicles, associated traffic, pollutants, dust and noise, complying with lighting requirements inside and outside the facility under city and county laws, the amount of water needed for construction and operations, and the plan for waste disposal. 

Finally, she inquired about the presence of adequate medical care and the impacts to local municipal services, like fire, law enforcement and emergency response services.

The state’s public nuisance law empowers the attorney general to sue to enjoin or prevent any activity found to be “injurious to health, indecent, offensive to the senses or an obstruction to the free use of property that interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property by an entire community or neighborhood or by a considerable number of persons.” 

Mayes has relied on public nuisance law throughout her tenure, but only one claim remains alive in court. 

The attorney general is currently in litigation with Fondomonte Arizona, a Saudi Arabian-affiliated alfalfa farm, for what she is calling excessive groundwater pumping. 

A Maricopa County Superior Court judge is also now considering whether the implementation of an active management area for water regulation in the area negates or amplifies the need for public nuisance litigation, with a final ruling on Mayes’ claim still coming down the line. 

Prior to Fondomonte, Mayes sued two companies planning to build a mine near a residential area under public nuisance law, claiming potential structural damage, excessive dust and noise and increased traffic. The suit was voluntarily dismissed after a neighbor purchased the disputed land. 

Mayes also threatened to sue Riverview Dairy, LLC, a dairy farm, under the law for excessive groundwater pumping. 

Though the issue never went to court, the attorney general and the company entered into a settlement in which Riverview agreed to pay $11 million to remedy lost and strained groundwater access. 

Though Mayes said the ICE facility may well fit into state public nuisance law, whether the federal government will bow to state law remains a key concern. 

In Surprise’s statement, officials said the federal government was not subject to local zoning regulations. 

Mayes anticipated the same pushback, though she noted a statement on the DHS website in which it would comply with “federal, state, and local laws and regulations, in operation of DHS facilities.” 

“We’ll see what they have to say,” Mayes said. 

Mayes also asked for copies of responses to questions posed by U.S. Reps. Paul Gosar, Yassamin Ansar, Greg Stanton and Adelita Grijalva, Arizona members of Congress. 

Gosar, a Republican, sent the first letter on Feb. 4. He started by clarifying he “strongly” supported ICE operations but noted that the impacts of immigration policy are “most acutely felt at the local level.”

“A detention facility of the reported size raises legitimate and reasonable questions for nearby residents, schools, first responders, and local governments. Concerns regarding infrastructure capacity, traffic, emergency services, environmental impacts, and public safety deserve serious consideration,” Gosar wrote. “These are not anti-illegal immigration concerns; they are common-sense expectations of transparency, planning, and accountability.” 

Gosar and Mayes overlapped on inquiries about consultation with local governments, schools, law enforcement, traffic impacts and adequate medical services. 

However Gosar did add his own questions to the mix concerning the facility’s population, oversight on operations, security measures, timelines for development and expansion, contingency plans for growth and future plans for communication and local consultation. 

Mayes identified Gosar’s letter as the catalyst for her own. 

“Quite frankly, when I read Congressman Gosar’s letter, it struck me that he was asking the kinds of questions that go into a possible nuisance lawsuit,” Mayes said. 

In a Feb. 6 letter, Democrats Ansari, Stanton and Grijalva similarly asked about community impact, operational footprints and the department’s authority to purchase, acquire and convert the property. And most recently, U.S. Sens. Mark Kelly and Ruben Gallego added another letter to the pile on Feb. 10, with similar questions. 

Mayes set a response deadline for Feb. 17, as did Gallego and Kelly. Gosar asked for a response by Feb. 18 and Ansari, Stanton and Grijalva set a Feb. 20 deadline. 

The Department of Homeland Security and ICE did not respond to a request for comment. 

The post Mayes uses ‘public nuisance’ law to target proposed Surprise ICE facility first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.

Key Points: 

• New legislation in Arizona redefines minor protest-related crimes as “civil terrorism”

• Blocking roads and vandalism could lead to 18 months in state prison

• The legislation would add civil terrorism to the definition of racketeering

People who block traffic in protest, trespass in a building or commit other minor crimes could end up in state prison under the terms of new legislation making its way through the state House.

But it could depend on what they are protesting — and why.

Legislation being pushed by Rep. Michael Way, R-Queen Creek, in the wake of anti-ICE disturbances in other cities would create a new crime of “civil terrorism” for those who commit vandalism, destruction of property or disorderly conduct “with the intent to coerce or intimidate a civilian population.”

But Way’s measure would also include “deprivation of civil rights or any other unlawful act” within its definition. 

That’s just part of what is in his HB2136 which was crafted in collaboration with Tal Fortang, a legal policy fellow at the Manhattan Institute which says its goals include advancing “creative, evidence-based policy ideas for better policing, public safety and criminal justice.”

Also in the legislation is the new crime of “subversion” for someone who commits any unlawful act at all to advance the interests of a terrorist organization, attempt to act as a foreign government agent, or “subvert the government of this state or the United States.”

That last provision alarmed Marilyn Rodriguez of the Arizona chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

“Persons can be charged with a Class 5 felony if the action is motivated by disdain for the United States government,” she said.

“The government cannot punish people more harshly because they express views critical of the government,” Rodriguez told members of the House Judiciary Committee. “And it is part of a larger attack … to label everyday Americans as terrorists for expressing political views critical of the Trump administration.”

There are things considered “civil disobedience” that already violate the law and can be prosecuted. What’s different, Rodriguez said, is that new label of “terrorist” and the enhanced penalty.

Consider, she told lawmakers, the 1965 civil rights march from Selma to Montgomery where 600 people blocked the highway while crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

“This bill would declare them terrorists,” Rodriguez said.

Fortang, of the Manhattan Institute, said that in Arizona and elsewhere, “extremist groups” are making increased use of civil terrorism.

“That term refers to the mass commission of minor crimes in order to intimidate or coerce civilians into taking unpopular political positions,” Fortang said.

“Instead of persuading their fellow Americans through free and robust speech, they break laws by doing things like blocking roads, or vandalizing, or destroying property,” he said. “When you engage in democratic politics, actions that inconvenience your fellow citizens are the worst things you can do.”

Fortang also said that “certain radical organizations” brag about how they plan to escalate until their demands are met.

“Sometimes they do so explicitly to advance the interests of America’s adversaries or of designated foreign terrorist organizations,” though he offered no specific examples.

The bottom line, said Fortang, is the legislation would allow “enhanced” prosecution of those who violate other minor crimes “based on the intent behind the commission of those crimes.”

“If someone throws a rock or fires a weapon or blocks a road, and they say that they are doing so because ‘I want the state of Arizona to change its policies around one thing or another,’ it could really be anything, that could be evidence that could go to prosecuting the crime more severely,” he said.

But there’s something else.

The legislation would add disorderly conduct, riot, civil terrorism and subversion to the definition of racketeering. And that, said Fortang, has a specific purpose.

“It allows the state of Arizona to prosecute those who conspire to commit riot or felony disorderly conduct for civil terrorism in addition to the people that actually carry it out,” he said.

The question of how the law would be applied provoked questions from Rep. Lupe Contreras. The Avondale Democrat asked Way whether what he was proposing could have been used against those who rioted at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2001, assaulted police officers, broke into the building and tried to stop the electoral vote count in an effort to prevent certification of the results which showed that Joe Biden had won the presidential election.

Way sidestepped the question, saying all that occurred on federal property in Washington, where Arizona laws don’t apply.

Contreras pushed the issue, asking Way to explain how his bill would apply if the same thing occurred here in Arizona. Way again deflected, preferring to provide his own illustrations.

“Some of the recent real world examples that could apply to this that we can actually make sure we can give our law enforcement officers the ability to stop this would be the recent attacks in Texas that happened in July against ICE enforcement officers, the recent attacks that occurred in L.A., the FBI investigations that went into the anti-ICE activity that seemed very coordinated, very coordinated threats against, those are some of the examples of what this would apply to,” he said.

Pushed further, Way noted there were demonstrations against ICE recently in front of the Arizona Capitol, with security locking the doors to keep them out.

“I think that would probably qualify,” he said.

Tempe Democrat Brian Garcia tried a different approach, asking Way if his legislation would apply to “terrorizing children that are undocumented.”

“We’re very familiar with how ICE has been terrorizing children,” he said to Way. “Because this is civil terrorism, I want to understand what we’re talking about.”

Rep. Quang Nguyen, who chairs the committee, cut in to ask Way if he would characterize ICE as a terrorism organization.

“Absolutely not,” Way responded.

But in casting his vote, Way acknowledged “there’s a lot of gray area” in exactly what his legislation would cover and offered to meet with Contreras to see if there is a way the measure could be amended to make him more comfortable with what is and is not covered.

Changes could be necessary if Way expects his measure to become law.

Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed a measure last year that would have made it a felony to intentionally interfere with traffic if it results in more than 25 vehicles being held up.

“Recognizing the sanctity of constitutionally protected rights, it is critical we approach these matters with precision to avoid infringing on Arizonans’ freedoms,” she wrote.

The post Proposed law defines ‘civil terrorism’ and enhances penalties for protesters first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.

Key Points:

• Arizona state Senate approves measure requiring hospitals to ask patients about immigration status

• Senator Wendy Rogers’ bill makes answering the question optional 

• Opponents argue the bill may deter undocumented immigrants from seeking medical care

Saying the public deserves to know, the state Senate has approved a measure requiring hospitals that receive public money to ask patients whether they are in the country legally.

Strictly speaking, the proposal by Sen. Wendy Rogers, approved on a 16-13 party-line vote, would not deny care to anyone. The Flagstaff Republican said her SB1051 makes answering the question on the patient admission form optional.

There would be a statement on the form saying that the answer will not affect the patient’s care and that the response will not be reported to immigration authorities.

That provision did not impress Sen. Analise Ortiz.

“Right now we know that no personal information is safe from being given over to ICE who is killing people in the streets, including United States citizens,” said the Phoenix Democrat.

Federal Medicaid officials already have agreed to provide Immigration and Customs Enforcement with information about the identity and location of “aliens” in this country. And ICE is accessing data from the IRS and the Social Security Administration.

But whether risk exists or not, Democrats contend that simply asking the question could lead people to avoid necessary medical care.

Worse yet, said Sen. Sally Ann Gonzales, is that by avoiding treatment for minor — and potentially contagious — diseases, they endanger everyone else. And the Tucson Democrat said that when a patient’s situation becomes dire, treatment will only cost more, because federal law prohibits hospitals from turning away patients who need emergency care.

The hour-long debate provoked heated accusations from both sides.

“This is about intimidation and terrorizing our communities,” said Sen. Lauren Kuby, D-Tempe.
Sen. Catherine Miranda, D-Laveen, called it “just mean.”

Rogers, however, said her measure is crafted simply to help attach a dollar-and-cents figure to at least part of the price tag associated with the medical care of illegal migrants. And she dismissed the claim that just asking the question will cause people to stay away.

“I cannot divine the intentions of fellow human beings,” Rogers said.

“This is an accountancy bill,” she said. “And what its downstream, subjective impact would be is anybody’s guess.”

She drew support from Sen. Jake Hoffman.

“This bill is about understanding the data around the financial burden of illegal aliens in this country, many of whom are dangerous,” said the Queen Creek Republican. Hoffman put the cost nationally at $150 billion, mainly divided up between having to educate the children of those not here legally and providing health care to migrants and their children.

And that, said Hoffman, is about more than just money.

“Hospital systems are burdened because of illegal aliens,” he said. “That means American citizens get a lower quality of care because of that burden,” Hoffman said, “including overcrowded emergency rooms.”

What SB 1051 provides, he said, is the information that constituents want.

“They want to know how much of their hard-earned tax dollars is going to support illegal aliens utilizing and bogging down our hospital system,” he said.

Miranda said the flaw in all that is the belief that such reporting eventually will lead to savings.

“Different ailments are at different levels,” she said.

“If our undocumented population is afraid to go to emergency or the hospitals, then those ailments go to a higher level of concern, which will cost our state money,” Miranda said. “So I’m concerned, first and foremost, about the rising cost of people in fear and not going to the hospital.”

And Kuby said the concerns about the costs of providing care are offset by a study showing that those who are not here legally are paying federal, state and local taxes to the tune of $100 billion a year, which they won’t be eligible to get back in benefits.

Gonzales noted those numbers.

“Instead of asking for reporting and the immigration status, we should be asking the federal government and using that money to provide health care for anybody,” she said. And Gonzales said she also sees the whole issue on a more personal level.

“It’s only going to profile people who look like me,” she said.

Senate Minority Leader Priya Sundareshan, D-Tucson, said that if Hoffman and Republicans are looking for reasons why hospitals are facing financial strain, they should look no further than HR 1, the massive package passed by Congress — with only GOP votes — which cuts funding for Medicaid, which so many hospitals rely on to remain open.

Rogers’ measure, which now goes to the House, faces an uncertain future at best.

Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed a nearly identical measure last year. She said the legislation was opposed by business leaders, hospitals, and others “who understand that immigration enforcement is best left to federal law enforcement and not health care professionals.”

The post State Senate approves immigration checks in Arizona hospitals first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.

We’ve heard from a lot of Pinal County residents who are confused by the board’s public claims about our 287(g) agreement with ICE and what the law actually allows. You deserve clarity — not spin. This partnership isn’t politics. It’s public safety. The Pinal County Attorney’s Office is using every lawful tool in the toolbox to protect our residents.

It also aligns with President Trump’s public-safety priorities: Remove repeat and violent offenders, dismantle trafficking networks and restore the rule of law.

Let’s be clear. We target specific offenders based on documented criminal behavior, with warrants, already known by law enforcement. We are not patrolling communities.

Here’s where the narrative is misleading:

Myth #1: “The sheriff already does this.”

Yes — the sheriff has long cooperated with ICE, and that continues. When criminals land in jail after committing new crimes, ICE is notified and can act. That matters. But jail processing is only one tool. 

287(g) has three models: Jail Enforcement (in-custody screening), Warrant Service (serving ICE warrants in jail), and Task Force (ICE-supervised operations targeting specific offenders). 

The sheriff uses the jail model. PCAO signed the Task Force model — because Pinal County needs more than one tool.  

The Task Force model allows all those who participate to receive information about known criminals in our community that should be arrested and held accountable.  We shouldn’t wait for new victims to arrest known violent criminals.

Myth #2: “PCAO has no law enforcement.”

Wrong. Arizona law allows county attorneys to employ AZPOST-certified, sworn peace officers as investigators. This is standard across Arizona and has been for decades. 

They gather intelligence, support investigations, and help prevent additional crimes — working with the sheriff, task forces and now ICE.  

Myth #3: “This was signed in secret.”

False. In July, we asked to address it in an open meeting — not for permission, but to notify the Board of Supervisors of our intent. The purpose was to provide the board and the public with much needed information about the program and give an opportunity to ask questions.  We do not need board approval to carry out our constitutional duties.

Myth #4: “Outside counsel said it’s void, so it’s void.”

A legal opinion is not a court ruling. Reasonable lawyers can disagree. But the board declared the issue “settled” and presented only one side to the public.  That’s not transparency. That’s narrative control.

The bottom line? This is about lawful authority, proper process and protecting the people of Pinal County. Public safety isn’t just a talking point on this one. It’s our job.

Brad Miller is the Pinal County attorney and a career prosecutor. 

The post Public safety over politics – why our county partnered with ICE first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.

Key Points: 

• A closed jail in Marana is being considered for an immigration detention center 
• Management and Training Corp. bought the jail this year and has not determined how it will be used 
• U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement won’t confirm any plans until finalized 

An old jail in Marana is being considered for conversion into an immigration detention center after a private prison contractor bought the facility earlier this year. 

According to emails the Arizona Capitol Times obtained from the Town of Marana in early November, the now-dormant jail purchased by Management & Training Corporation was mentioned in talks to be used by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement as a detention center. These talks took place between May and October, according to the emails.  

Terry Rozema, the city manager of Marana, said MTC met with him earlier this year. While he wouldn’t reveal the specifics of their conversation, Rozema said both the possibility of using the facility as a regular detention center and an ICE detention center were brought to his attention. 

Since the meeting, Rozema has not received any information from MTC on their decisions regarding how the prison will be used. 

What is known as the “old jail” in Marana, was an active prison until it shut down at the end of 2023. In July of this year, the state of Arizona sold the facility to MTC for $15 million. 

When the jail was active, it provided an additional labor force for the town, Rozema said. He said he hopes it will reopen as something similar to provide additional economic assistance to Marana.

“A lot of (detainees) worked for us, helping with road maintenance and roadway cleanup and landscape and stuff like that,” Rozema said. “We would hire like 20, 25 of them a day to go out and help us keep our roadways clean, pick up trash, cut the weeds … so it was a great win for us.”

Rozema said when the jail was in use, it was for people guilty of crimes with shorter sentences, such as DUIs and minor drug offenses. 

Emily Lawhead, director of communications for MTC, said the company was in discussions with several public agencies that may need “additional bed space.”

“The facility’s capacity and configuration would ultimately depend on the specific needs and requirements of each agency,” Lawhead said. 

According to MTC’s website, the company already operates multiple ICE detention facilities throughout the Southwest. They run three in Texas, one in California and one in New Mexico. According to their website, MTC does not operate any facilities in Arizona.  

“U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s enhanced enforcement operations and routine daily operations have resulted in a significant number of arrests of criminal aliens that require greater detention capacity,” an ICE spokesperson said in a written statement to the Arizona Capitol Times. 

The spokesperson said that while the organization will not confirm the intention with the Marana jail before a final decision is made, if a new facility contract is finalized, information will be available on their website. 

If the property does reopen as an immigration detention facility, Rozema said he is doubtful the detainees will be allowed to leave the area, due to the likelihood of them only being held there for a short period of time.

“If they’re here illegally, they’re not going to let them out to work on the sides of the freeways and the sides of the roadways, patching asphalt or anything like that,” Rozema said. 

Despite his concerns about the workforce, Rozema said he does not think either decision will strongly impact  Marana. Moreso, he said he anticipated a strong reaction from the town’s residents, driven by their own political views and public distaste for MTC as a company. Some, Rozema said, have already shown up at city council meetings to protest MTC’s plans. 

“Those who are greatly opposed to it, that’s where the effect will be,” Rozema said. 

In a written statement to the Arizona Capitol Times, a spokesperson from the ACLU of Arizona said the organization firmly opposes the idea of the facility being turned into an ICE detention center. 

“Arizona has seen firsthand how detention centers fuel a broader ecosystem of abuse and harm: families being separated, communities losing their stability, and fear is constantly present — especially for those who are already vulnerable,” the spokesperson said.

The post Marana jail under consideration for ICE detention facility first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.