By Jonathan Eberle |
Maricopa County officials are asking a federal judge to rein in what they describe as years of mission creep by the court-appointed monitor overseeing reforms within the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO), arguing that the agency has fully complied with the policy changes required under a landmark racial-profiling case.
In a new legal filing submitted last week in Sheridan v. Melendres—a case that began nearly two decades ago over civil-rights violations during traffic stops—Board of Supervisors Chairman Thomas Galvin and Vice Chair Kate Brophy McGee contend that the county has long met the terms of the court’s orders and that continued federal intervention is no longer justified.
The filing points to a central argument: since the court issued its first injunctive order, MCSO has undergone sweeping reforms, leadership changes, and years of federal scrutiny. “Since the issuance of the Court’s first injunctive order, fourteen years have passed, three new Sheriffs have taken office (from both political parties), MCSO has achieved 100% compliance with required policy changes, and there have been zero new allegations of targeted immigration enforcement by MCSO,” the document states.
At the heart of the county’s challenge is the work of federal monitor Robert Warshaw, who has overseen MCSO’s compliance efforts for nearly 15 years. According to the filing, Warshaw and his team have collected more than $30 million in fees during that time. County leaders say they have been increasingly frustrated with what they describe as an expansion of Warshaw’s role—particularly his recent “audit” of county spending related to the case. They argue that federal oversight was intended to ensure constitutional policing practices, not to scrutinize local budgeting decisions.
“In today’s legal filing, we highlight how far the federal monitor has strayed from his original charge,” Galvin and Brophy McGee wrote in a joint statement. “Digging into county finances and trying to minimize the cost of Melendres compliance is not just an insult to taxpayers, it’s beyond the federal court’s jurisdiction.”
County attorneys note that nothing in the county’s budgeting practices violates state or federal law. For that reason, the Board says it will not participate in further disputes over compliance-related costs. The county’s brief argues that questions about staffing, budgets, and administrative costs fall squarely within local authority. Citing Supreme Court precedent, the filing asserts that “federal-court decrees must directly address and relate to the constitutional violation itself.”
The county maintains that because MCSO has reached full compliance with all policy reforms stemming from the Melendres orders—including the creation of 209 positions tied directly to those requirements—the original purpose of the decree has been fulfilled. “It would be a complete waste of taxpayer money to engage the federal courts in a back-and-forth over what is clearly an issue of local jurisdiction,” the statement reads.
Galvin and Brophy McGee say the Board’s priority is protecting taxpayers and ensuring resources are directed toward public safety needs determined at the local level. The Board of Supervisors represents roughly 4.5 million residents. “We’ll keep standing up for transparency, common sense, and your right to self-govern,” they wrote.
The federal court will now determine whether the county’s arguments warrant narrowing or ending the monitor’s authority—a decision that could significantly reshape the long-running oversight of one of the nation’s most closely watched law-enforcement reform cases.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
