The Pinal County Board of Supervisors just voted unanimously this afternoon to authorize a lawsuit against County Attorney Brad Miller over his office’s immigration enforcement agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, escalating a legal dispute over who has authority to enter such partnerships on behalf of the county.

Following a 30-minute closed door executive session, supervisors voted to allow outside counsel, the law firm Snell & Wilmer, to initiate civil action seeking to void or block enforcement of a 287(g) task force agreement Miller signed with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security last year without prior board approval.

The agreement, dated Aug. 28, 2025, authorizes investigators in the county attorney’s office to assist ICE by questioning individuals about their immigration status and making arrests under federal immigration law.

Supervisors did not discuss the matter publicly before or during the vote. No opposition was voiced, and the motion passed unanimously.

The decision comes after weeks of public disagreement between the board and Miller, who has refused to terminate the agreement despite a board order to do so by Jan. 28. In a letter sent earlier this week to the board’s outside counsel, Miller rejected the board’s conclusion that the agreement is unlawful, arguing that his office acted within its authority.

“I respectfully disagree with your legal analysis,” Miller wrote, adding that he has “no intention of terminating the Section 287(g) Agreement with DHS.”

The Board of Supervisors contends the agreement is invalid under Arizona law because it was never approved by the county’s governing body, which holds exclusive authority to enter into intergovernmental agreements and commit county funds.

The board’s legal opinion, authored by Snell & Wilmer attorney Brett Johnson, also warned that the task force model could expose the county to civil rights lawsuits and jeopardize prosecutorial immunity by placing the county attorney in both an enforcement and prosecutorial role.

Miller has argued that his office sought to brief supervisors on the agreement before it was signed but was denied a spot on the board’s agenda. He has said he remains willing to discuss the matter publicly but maintains the agreement is legally binding. ICE has also backed Miller’s position, stating the agreement remains in effect.

The dispute has unfolded amid heightened public attention to immigration enforcement in Pinal County, including student walkouts this week at Maricopa High School protesting ICE activity. Those demonstrations highlighted fears among students and families about immigration raids and law enforcement cooperation with federal authorities.

Supervisor Mike Goodman pushed back yesterday against claims that the board is attempting to block immigration enforcement, calling those assertions “simply not true.”

In an opinion piece, Goodman emphasized that the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office has partnered with ICE since 2008 and continues to do so.

“We did not stop immigration enforcement,” Goodman wrote. “Public safety was not compromised.”

Goodman said the conflict arose only because Miller signed a separate 287(g) task force agreement without board approval and outside the authority granted to his office under state law. Under Arizona statutes, Goodman argued, the county attorney serves as a prosecutor, while arrest powers and field enforcement authority belong to the sheriff.

“Prosecutors enforce the law in court. Sheriffs enforce the law on the street,” Goodman wrote. “That separation is not a technicality — it is one of the most important safeguards in our system.”

Miller’s agreement is unusual in Arizona. While several sheriffs’ offices and police departments in the state participate in the 287(g) program, the Pinal County Attorney’s Office is the only prosecutor’s office to join the task force model, which allows warrantless arrests based on suspected immigration violations. The model was discontinued by the federal government in 2012 amid concerns about racial profiling and later revived.

The lawsuit authorized Thursday would seek a court ruling on whether the agreement is valid and enforceable. County officials did not indicate when legal action would be filed.