Maricopa County leaders say it’s time to bring federal monitoring to an end for a judgment made nearly 15 years ago.
President Barack Obama’s Department of Justice (DOJ) and the ACLU alleged racial profiling in a lawsuit against the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) under former Sheriff Joe Arpaio. A federal court found MCSO to be guilty in 2011, and placed the department under a federal monitor to achieve reforms.
Last December, Maricopa County filed a motion to end that federal oversight. Then, last month, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Vice Chair Debbie Lesko followed up on that termination request before a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee. Joining Lesko were MCSO Community Advisory Board member Felix Garcia and Goldwater Institute’s vice president for litigation and general counsel Jon Riches.
The trio emphasized in their individual testimonies how county spending has gone on “indefinitely” to meet the “moving goalposts” of federal oversight.
Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05), gubernatorial candidate, led the subcommittee hearing, “The Monitoring Racket: The Grift That Keeps on Giving.”
This month, another Maricopa County leader spoke up to advocate once again for an end to federal oversight. Supervisor Mark Stewart published a Substack article criticizing the federal government’s lack of interest in removing the federal monitor.
Stewart and county leaders say the oversight has cost the county nearly $350 million (though proponents of the oversight such as the ACLU argue that county inflated this total with unrelated costs and the real total is far less: around $60 million).
“Notably, over the past five years, there has not been a single sustained claim of racial profiling. Yet federal oversight remains in place, costing Maricopa County taxpayers nearly $350 million,” stated Stewart. “Even as compliance has been achieved and maintained, Maricopa County residents continue to bear the financial burden of prolonged oversight. Hindering resources that could otherwise be invested directly into public safety, training, hiring, and community engagement.”
The county’s millions spent in compliance efforts over the years have yielded reforms to include the implementation of body-worn cameras, structured constitutional policing curriculum, and data-driven accountability policies.
About ten percent of the $350 million estimate given by the county for compliance payments, over $30 million, was given to the court monitor Robert Warshaw.
Warshaw has faced allegations of capitalizing on a financial incentive to continue his federal oversight, not only in Arizona but in municipalities within other states. He has earned tens of millions over his years as a federal monitor.
Elected officials say MCSO has met and exceeded criteria for resolving the issues found by the court, yet the monitoring activities have not only continued but in recent years gone beyond the initial scope of the court findings.
The ACLU and the district judge in the case, G. Murray Snow, acknowledged last October that MCSO reached Phase One compliance with the 2011 court order.
“Courts are often called upon to correct past failures. They are also uniquely positioned to recognize when those corrections have taken hold,” said Stewart. “Maricopa County has reached that point. The progress is undeniable, leadership is strong, and the time has come to move forward.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
The Scottsdale Police Department (SPD) says they won’t be posting the mugshots of recently arrested child sex traffickers under the claim that Arizona law prohibits the posting of mugshots.
“It is currently against the law in Arizona to post mugshots and names on social media related to arrests,” said SPD.
However, it’s not Arizona law that prohibits the posting of mugshots. SPD based their claim on the 2024 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Houston v. Maricopa. The agency involved in that ruling, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO), modified their mugshot posting practice in order to comply with that ruling.
It is currently against the law in AZ to post mugshots and names on social media related to arrests. There are exceptions for emergency community notifications, such as wanted armed and dangerous suspects. Most of the cases from our anti-trafficking are DECOY BASED. Meaning an…
SPD issued the statement in response to criticisms that they failed to post the mugshots identifying around 200 individuals arrested in a weeks-long sex trafficking sting by SPD’s Human Exploitation and Trafficking Unit from the end of January through mid-February.
Charges included child sex trafficking, attempted sexual conduct with a minor, luring a minor for sexual exploitation, prostitution and pandering, and weapons misconduct. Some of those individuals arrested had outstanding felony warrants.
MCSO resumed their posting of mugshots in a manner they claim achieves compliance with the court ruling last August.
— Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (@MCSOAZ) August 21, 2025
An MCSO spokesperson, William Jinks, indicated at the time that the court ruling didn’t make it “illegal” to post mugshots. Rather, the judgment established guidelines for posting.
“The changes made to the mug shot page are in accordance with the opinion of the appellate court,” said Jinks.
The 2024 ruling found specifically that MCSO’s policy of posting mugshots was unconstitutional — not the entire practice of posting mugshots.
The court took issue with MCSO’s policy of posting personally identifying information with the mugshot (birth date, sex, height, weight, hair color, eye color, and arresting charges), removing the online posting after three days, and failing to identify the arresting agency.
Ninth Circuit Judge Marsha Berzon ruled that governmental transparency wasn’t a valid justification for MCSO’s mugshot posting policy.
“Governmental actions that harmfully affect arrestees pretrial can violate due process if impermissibly punitive, whether a condition of pretrial detention or not,” stated Berzon. “What is the public interest, for example, in publicly disclosing [the arrestee’s] weight? So, too, with other personal information including his birthdate, height, eye color, and hair color. The County nowhere purports to show, much less succeeds in showing, why this level of granular detail about [the arrestee’s] body and personal identity rationally furthers an interest in government transparency.”
MCSO adapted its policy to resolve those contentions by the court. The new mugshots page lists far less information: booking number, first and last name, and charges. Mugshots also have watermarks identifying MCSO as the arresting agency. The page also has a disclaimer posted at the top: “All individuals are innocent until proven guilty.” The page only includes the 100 most recent mugshots.
Houston v. Maricopa is currently under civil appeal within the Arizona District One Court of Appeals. The latest development in that case was the court’s approval last month for oral arguments.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
The Goldwater Institute is asking a federal judge to allow Maricopa County taxpayers to see how public funds have been spent during more than a decade of federal oversight of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO).
In a friend-of-the-court brief filed on Tuesday, Goldwater urged the U.S. District Court to reconsider a 2014 order that keeps the federal monitor’s invoices confidential. Under that order, the court-appointed monitor, Warshaw & Associates, submits billing records exclusively to the judge, placing them outside public view.
Scrutiny of the court-appointed monitor has been growing in recent weeks. Over $300 million has been spent on oversight in the past 14 years, with approximately 10% going to the court monitor, Robert Warshaw, according to Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Chairman Thomas Galvin. The Board submitted a court filing in December asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona to end federal oversight of MCSO. Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell agreed in a post to X, writing, “There is no defense for this ‘federal monitor.”
Vice President for Legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute, Timothy Sandefur, explained, “That means Maricopa County taxpayers have no way of knowing how their tax dollars are being spent on one of the most important services the county provides.”
“Although the Goldwater Institute has repeatedly requested copies of these invoices, the county does not have itemized statements, and the federal monitor refused to produce them,” he added. “But as we point out in the brief we filed on Tuesday, the government should not be allowed to keep such information secret unless there’s good reason, and even then, they’re required to specify what those reasons are. The court in this case has never done so—and even if it had, circumstances have changed in the decade since the lawsuit began.”
The filing comes as Maricopa County separately argues that continued federal oversight of MCSO under the Melendres v. Arpaio ruling is no longer justified. In a pending motion, the county contends that the sheriff’s office has implemented substantial reforms and that the monitorship should be terminated.
In its brief, Goldwater argues that the continued sealing of the monitor’s invoices prevents taxpayers from knowing how their money is being spent and undermines transparency principles embedded in Arizona and federal law.
“History did not end in 2014, and continued federal oversight of MCSO cannot be based on decade-old facts,” the brief states. “It’s crucial that Maricopa County taxpayers be permitted to know where their tax dollars are going — and that’s hindered by the existing orders and continued federal oversight without a full public accounting.”
The court has not yet ruled on either Maricopa County’s motion to end federal oversight or Goldwater’s request for public access to the monitor’s billing records.
Corporate media is making the case that the state’s largest sheriff’s office still needs federal oversight for racial profiling.
ABC 15 aired a segment criticizing a court filing requesting an end to the decade-long federal oversight of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO). The oversight emerged from the Melendres v. Arpaio case, a class action complaint against allegedly racially motivated detentions that occurred during illegal migrant sweeps.
FOIAzona caught reporting errors made within a report by ABC 15 that no longer appears to be published, including the claim that MCSO filed the court motion.
However, it was the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) who submitted that court filing earlier this month. MCBOS has budgetary power over MCSO.
In their court filing, MCBOS made the case that MCSO had long ago achieved 100 percent compliance in remedying issues of racially motivated detentions. The county argued that further federal oversight would only divert critical funds for public safety.
In a video explaining the filing, MCBOS Chairman Thomas Galvin said the end to federal oversight was long overdue.
“After 14 years, four sheriffs, and hundreds of millions of spent tax dollars, it is essential to defend taxpayer money if federal oversight is no longer warranted,” said Galvin. “All that’s left to enforce are matters unrelated to discriminatory policing which should be left to the sheriff who was elected by you: the Maricopa County residents.”
The 14 years of oversight have cost the county over $300 million in compliance. Around ten percent of those payments went to the court monitor, Robert Warshaw.
Leading up to MCBOS filing were months of allegations that Warshaw has a financial incentive to continue federal oversight of MCSO. Warshaw has earned over $30 million in monitor fees since taking on oversight of MCSO in January 2014 — around $3 million annually.
Warshaw faces similar accusations of exploiting federal oversight orders for personal gain in connection to his 15-plus years of monitoring the Oakland Police Department in California. There he earns over $1 million annually.
Warshaw has also earned millions from federal monitor assignments in New York, Michigan, and Louisiana.
Warshaw formerly served as the deputy drug czar for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy under former President Bill Clinton.
Almost a decade ago, Judicial Watch reported on allegations that Warshaw allegedly employed “harsh” tactics that distracted from the county’s law enforcement activities.
Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell said Warshaw’s presence is no longer warranted.
“There is no defense for this ‘federal monitor,’” said Mitchell. “One more reason I like to get my news from the non-fiction section.”
There is no defense for this "federal monitor". One more reason I like to get my news from the non-fiction section. https://t.co/XcDTqWM4nL
— Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell (@Rachel1Mitchell) December 29, 2025
Mitchell has been a vocal critic of Warshaw’s continued presence.
“It’s time we stop talking about Joe Arpaio — he is long gone and has been replaced by 3 different sheriffs from both political parties — and start talking about why the federal monitor, Robert Warshaw, is dragging this on and on,” said Mitchell in a May post. “Maricopa taxpayers should be outraged that we are at $350 million. Warshaw has no incentive to wrap this up.”
Back in October, Congressman Andy Biggs also asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to lift MCSO’s federal oversight. Supervisors Mark Stewart and Debbie Lesko, along with Mitchell, offered their support for the letter.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
The federal government has watched over the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) for well over a decade.
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors says it’s no longer warranted.
The board filed a motion with the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona to cease federal oversight of MCSO.
Chairman Thomas Galvin explained in a video announcing the court filing that the MCSO has not had an issue with racial profiling for years — the allegation at the heart of Melendres v. Arpaio which resulted in a federal court ruling against MCSO.
“After 14 years, four sheriffs, and hundreds of millions of spent tax dollars, it is essential to defend taxpayer money if federal oversight is no longer warranted,” said Galvin.
The county has spent over $300 million to comply with federal court orders; over $30 million in fees on a court-appointed monitor. That means every year, the county has spent around $25 million for federal oversight.
The Melendres case was a class action complaint alleging racially motivated detentions under former MCSO Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Under Arpaio, law enforcement would conduct sweeps targeting individuals suspected of being illegal immigrants, often in areas where day laborers abounded. The lead plaintiff in the class action complaint, Ortega Melendres, was detained despite having lawful presence. Other plaintiffs alleged they were stopped and questioned by law enforcement because they were Latino.
Galvin said the MCSO is “100 percent in compliance” with court-ordered policy changes, and has no evidence of ongoing civil rights violations.
The motion cited results from multiple periodic reviews, such as the Traffic Study Annual Reports from the last two years which found “no statistically significant differences between white drivers and [Hispanic drivers].”
The motion argued that MCSO hasn’t been able to devote full energy to public safety and “countless” other priorities due to the significant diversion of resources required to fund federal oversight.
“MCSO’s current practices do not violate federal law. But continued federal oversight diverts resources that could be used to serve the people of Maricopa County,” stated the motion. “It also upsets the democratic process and America’s federalist structure by making local officials accountable to a federal court — based on the conduct of a former Sheriff who has been out of office for eight years.”
Chairman Galvin characterized the county’s petition as a defense of federalism by restoring the power of accountability to voters.
“All that’s left to enforce are matters unrelated to discriminatory policing which should be left to the sheriff who was elected by you: the Maricopa County residents,” said Galvin. “In our federalist system, elected officials are accountable to voters.”
In a separate statement, Galvin said the MCSO was a “completely different agency” than when the Melendres ruling was handed down nearly 15 years ago.
“The voters held the responsible parties accountable and voted them out. Since then, MCSO disbanded immigration-related units, implemented new policies and anti-bias trainings, and is a law enforcement agency we can be proud of. Further federal oversight is unnecessary and only serves to divert taxpayer dollars away from true public safety needs,” said Galvin.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
