A judge sided with the Pinal County Board of Supervisors on Friday in its legal fight with County Attorney Brad Miller, ruling Miller exceeded his authority when he signed an immigration enforcement agreement with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security without board approval.

The ruling permanently blocks Miller from performing work under the 287(g) agreement, according to a county news release. The board said the judge confirmed Arizona law gives supervisors exclusive authority to approve county contracts and oversee county spending.

The dispute centered on whether Miller had authority to sign the 2025 immigration enforcement agreement, which the board said was also an intergovernmental agreement under Arizona law.

The judge ruled he did not, according to the board.

“This Board has supported federal authorities and immigration enforcement for years,” Board of Supervisors Chairman Jeffrey McClure said. “This lawsuit is about whether elected officials must follow Arizona law, respect the limits of their office and properly safeguard taxpayer dollars. We are grateful that the Judge agreed and put a stop to Mr. Miller’s waste and abuse.”

Supervisor Rich Vitiello (R-Maricopa) said the court ruled in favor of the board on all counts.

The case, he said, was not about whether Pinal County cooperates with federal immigration authorities. It was about whether Miller could sign the agreement without approval from supervisors.

“We cooperate with ICE all the time for many, many years,” Vitiello said. “This ruling for us, in which we’ve been saying the whole time, is about did he have the power to sign the IGA, and the answer is no.”

Vitiello said the board had to approve the agreement because supervisors control county contracts and spending. He said the board was protecting taxpayers from potential costs tied to an agreement it never authorized.

The board argued Miller’s agreement exposed the county to liability, including property damage claims, injury claims and excessive overtime costs.

Vitiello said the sheriff’s office and other law enforcement agencies can still share information with ICE.

The board’s release made a similar point, saying the hearing showed a 287(g) agreement is not necessary for DHS to share information with a law enforcement agency or the County Attorney’s Office.

“My deputies work with and share information with ICE on a daily basis and that will continue,” Sheriff Ross Teeple said. “That is and has always been permitted under Arizona law for any law enforcement agency.”

The Arizona statute provided to InMaricopa, ARS 41-1750, governs the central state repository for criminal history records and criminal justice information. It says the Department of Public Safety shall cooperate with federal agencies in exchanging information relevant to violators of the law and ensure rapid exchange of crime and violator information among criminal justice agencies of other states and the federal government. It also authorizes exchange of criminal justice information with federal criminal justice agencies for administration of criminal justice.

Miller’s office framed the ruling differently.

“As a result of this ruling, the Pinal County Attorney can no longer share information with federal officials under the Task Force Model agreement to assist ICE in locating and arresting dangerous violent criminals in the community before they commit another crime,” Miller’s office said in a news release.

“Instead, we must now wait until those individuals create another victim and end up back in jail on a new charge under the Sheriff’s Jail Agreement.”

The office said it respects the court’s prompt ruling and is “strongly considering an appeal.”

The board said the judge also ruled the agreement improperly expanded the role of County Attorney investigators by authorizing arrests, interrogations and detention-related activities that fall under the sheriff’s authority.

The board has approved a separate 287(g) agreement for Sheriff Teeple to provide immigration enforcement assistance in the county jail.

“Residents expect county government to operate responsibly and collaboratively,” McClure said. “We support law enforcement partnerships that are properly authorized and fiscally sound. This lawsuit was about upholding those standards and protecting the people of Pinal County.”