Editor’s note: Brad Miller has submitted an op-ed to InMaricopa.com responding to the 287(g) dispute. Read it here.

A Pinal County judge has temporarily blocked Pinal County Attorney Brad Miller from enforcing a controversial immigration enforcement agreement with federal officials, intensifying a growing legal dispute between the county’s elected prosecutor and its governing board.

Pinal County Superior Court Judge Joseph Georgini granted the county’s request for a temporary restraining order today, barring Miller from taking any action to implement or enforce a 287(g) task force agreement between the Pinal County Attorney’s Office and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Miller’s office has not been served with the lawsuit or injunction as of publication, according to a source inside the county attorney’s office. 

The order freezes the agreement until a hearing later this month, when Miller must appear in court and explain to the judge why the agreement should remain in place.

Pinal County and its board of supervisors filed the lawsuit yesterday after Miller refused to comply with a board directive ordering him to terminate the agreement. The board argues Miller was never authorized to enter into the ICE contract without board approval. The suit claims Miller violated Arizona law governing intergovernmental agreements and county spending.

The agreement, signed in August, authorizes ten of the county attorney’s staff to assist U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement by questioning individuals about their immigration f status and making arrests under federal immigration law. PCAO is the only prosecutor’s office in Arizona participating in the 287(g) task-force model and one of few across the country involved in the program. 

In its complaint, the county argues that only the board of supervisors has authority to approve contracts on behalf of the county and to obligate public funds. The board authorized the agreement for the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office in 2018. Outside attorneys with Snell & Willmer representing the county contend that Miller’s office lacks the authority to enter into such agreements. Powers granted to county attorneys under Arizona law do not include immigration enforcement or arrest authority.

The lawsuit further claims that only the county sheriff, not the county attorney, has the authority to “preserve the peace” and arrest people suspected of committing crimes, including immigration violations.

County lawyers also warn that the agreement could put Pinal County taxpayers on the hook for lawsuits. 

The 287(g) agreement “makes the county liable for any ‘incidents’ that may occur while PCAO investigators are serving as de facto ICE agents,” claim attorneys in the suit. It would require the county to “compensate these investigators for any ‘enforcement’ actions, trainings or other tasks they undertake in their role with DHS”.

In a motion seeking emergency relief, attorneys argued that allowing the agreement to proceed could cause “irreparable harm, including unlawful spending of county funds, exposure to civil rights lawsuits and potential loss of prosecutorial immunity.”

Miller rejected the board’s position, maintaining that the agreement is valid and enforceable. In a letter sent last week to the board’s outside counsel, Miller said he “respectfully disagreed” with the board’s legal analysis and stated he has “no intention of terminating” the agreement.

In a trip last week to Washington, D.C., Miller met with Homeland Security staff, who backed the right-wing prosecutor, stating the agreement is legally binding.

Beyond the ICE agreement, the county also sparked an Attorney General’s Office investigation into a former employees’ complaint regarding pay and record retention.

Judge Georgini’s restraining order is a temporary free, preventing Miller from enforcing the agreement while the court considers whether to issue a longer-term injunction.

“The law does not bend to the ‘political ambitions’ of county officers,” concludes the suit. “The county attorney has no authority to enforce or implement an agreement that is void as a matter of law, entering into the PCAO agreement without informing the board or obtaining its approval may gratify the political ambitions of the county attorney, doing so does damage to the rule of law and orderly government.”

The order to show cause hearing is scheduled for Feb. 25 at 9 a.m. in Pinal County Superior Court.