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.
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.
On Wednesday, July 16th, I attended the quarterly public meeting held by the federal monitor overseeing the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, alongside Sheriff Jerry Sheridan. These meetings are intended to gather community input regarding the continued federal oversight. Historically, these sessions have been dominated by voices calling for the oversight to continue — but not anymore.
The people of Maricopa County are fed up. We’re tired of the federal government wasting taxpayer dollars, constantly shifting the goalposts, and interfering with our local law enforcement. Last week, hundreds of concerned citizens showed up to support Sheriff Sheridan and his dedicated team. And we’re not done. We will continue to make our voices heard every quarter until Judge Snow hears us loud and clear: enough is enough.
Out of thirteen mandated benchmarks from Judge Snow, the Sheriff’s Office has met twelve. The only remaining issue? Hispanic individuals, on average, experience encounters that are 17 seconds longer than individuals of other races. Seventeen seconds. That is the justification being used to prolong this multimillion-dollar oversight?
As someone who has worked in customer service, I can tell you that when a language barrier is involved, conversations naturally take longer. It’s not discrimination — it’s respect. It’s a commitment to ensuring clarity, understanding, and fairness. I would often take several minutes longer, not just seconds, to ensure someone understood important documents or procedures. That’s called good service — not racism.
Yet the ACLU and federal monitors insist this slight timing difference is grounds for continued federal control. They are actively seeking racism in places where it does not exist, undermining the professionalism and integrity of our Sheriff’s Office.
It’s time to end this charade. The citizens of Maricopa County demand the immediate termination of this federal monitoring. Let our sheriff do his job without unnecessary interference and outrageous costs.
Stop the federal monitoring of our Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.
Lisa Everett serves as the Legislative District 29 Chair. You can follow her on X here.
