Arizona Police: From Immigration Enforcement Leader to Policy Retreat

Police agencies across Arizona, once widely known for front-line roles in immigration enforcement during the height of SB 1070, are now largely stepping back from direct immigration policing in 2025. Departments big and small are limiting cooperation with federal programs like 287(g)—the system that allows local officers to act as immigration agents—and are instead focusing on core public safety work.

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com and law enforcement records reviewed this year, only a small fraction of agencies have active cooperation deals with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and most of those are confined to jail screening rather than street patrols. Police chiefs and sheriffs say the risks of civil rights lawsuits, court limits on local authority, and the need to keep trust with immigrant residents have reshaped day-to-day practice across the state.

Historical context: SB 1070 and its fallout

Passed in 2010, SB 1070 required Arizona officers to check immigration status during lawful stops if they had reasonable suspicion a person was in the country without legal status. The law triggered protests, boycotts, and lawsuits that reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 2012, the Court struck down most of the law, but left in place Section 2(B)—often called the “show me your papers” provision—which allows, but does not require, police to check immigration status during lawful stops. That ruling set tight limits on what local officers can do and affirmed that federal authorities remain primary on immigration.

At the county level, the shift away from heavy local involvement is tied to a hard lesson: the cost of unconstitutional policing. The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office under Sheriff Joe Arpaio became a national symbol of aggressive enforcement in the SB 1070 era. Federal courts later found the agency engaged in racial profiling and other constitutional violations. The county’s 287(g) agreement was suspended in 2011, and the sheriff’s office has faced years of federal court oversight since.

Those rulings landed with real force across Arizona, where police chiefs now point to legal risk, civil rights compliance, and budget strain as reasons to avoid stepping beyond clear federal boundaries.

Where Arizona stands in 2025: the data

• As of October 2025, only nine out of at least 106 Arizona law enforcement agencies have some form of agreement to cooperate with ICE on immigration arrests.
• Just four agencies joined since January 2025, despite a national push to expand 287(g).
• Most agreements are limited to jails—screening people already in custody—rather than task force or street-level operations.
• Only one new task force agreement was added this year (with the Pinal County Attorney’s Office), and it includes tight limits: no workplace raids or proactive sweeps; immigration issues are addressed only when they arise during other criminal investigations.

This trend shows agencies narrowing their focus and drawing a bright line between federal immigration duties and local crime control.

Why departments favor jail-based cooperation over task forces

The distinction between the two main 287(g) models is central:

• Jail model
  • Screening occurs after booking for local offenses.
  • Federal agents or trained staff check records and may place detainers (requests to hold someone for transfer to ICE).
  • Keeps immigration checks within a controlled setting and reduces profiling concerns.
• Task force model
  • Trained local officers operate in the community with power to make immigration arrests as part of other policing.
  • Seen as higher legal risk and more likely to harm witness and victim cooperation.

Most Arizona agencies now reject the task force approach because of legal exposure, community trust considerations, and resource strains (training, supervision, monitoring).

Community trust and public safety trade-offs

Police leaders in Phoenix, Pima County, and other jurisdictions say when local officers act like immigration agents, victims and witnesses are less likely to come forward. That breakdown can slow responses to domestic violence, wage theft, human trafficking, and other crimes affecting both citizens and noncitizens.

Departments emphasize:

• They want immigrants—documented or not—to feel safe calling 911, talking to detectives, or appearing in court.
• Less local immigration policing is argued to improve cooperation, which in turn helps solve crimes.
• Critics say reduced local help lets immigration violators slip by; chiefs counter that public safety depends on cooperation and community trust is fragile.

Border-county sheriffs have publicly stated that immigration enforcement is a federal job.

Legal and political developments in 2025

• Arizona’s Republican-controlled legislature pushed measures earlier this year to force broader participation in federal immigration programs, including 287(g) task forces.
• Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed that effort, preserving local discretion.
• Departments say the veto matters because it lets chiefs and sheriffs set policy based on legal advice, local crime patterns, and community input.

That discretion often results in jail-only cooperation or declining formal 287(g) deals altogether, keeping immigration enforcement primarily with the federal government.

Practical costs and operational concerns

Departments cite several practical burdens tied to 287(g) participation:

• Training, supervision, and reporting requirements that strain lean budgets.
• Diversion of officers from core duties—responding to burglaries, car thefts, overdoses, and shootings.
• Increased risk of civil rights lawsuits and legal costs, highlighted by the Maricopa litigation.
• Need for clear probable cause standards, consistent policy, and strong supervision to avoid wrongful stops and unequal treatment.

Insurance pools and county attorneys commonly advise staying within federal rules and focusing on community policing goals.

How this looks to residents

The most visible changes for residents:

• Fewer immigration questions from patrol officers during traffic stops.
• Fewer local-led raids and proactive sweeps.
• Section 2(B) of SB 1070 still allows status checks during lawful stops, but chiefs report it is used sparingly and only under policy guidance.
• If someone commits a crime, they face state charges like anyone else. If they enter jail, ICE involvement depends on county arrangements.

Departments promise that reporting a crime will not trigger a status check on the caller—an effort to rebuild trust damaged during the SB 1070 era.

Federal primacy and legal guardrails

Legal experts emphasize that federal primacy over immigration is backed by Supreme Court doctrine. The 2012 SB 1070 ruling made clear that states cannot design their own immigration systems.

Key legal points departments follow:

• Local officers can share information and respond to federal requests, but cannot create parallel enforcement paths that conflict with federal law.
• Agencies must protect equal protection and due process, requiring careful policies on stops, searches, and detentions.
• Department attorneys now routinely advise chiefs on where to draw boundaries between local and federal roles.

For the official federal overview of the program, refer to ICE’s page on the 287(g) program: ICE 287(g) Program.

Ongoing debate and differing views

There remains disagreement:

• Some local officials, especially in border areas, want tighter cooperation with federal agents, arguing the jail model misses people who avoid arrest.
• Others cite repeat offenders who cycle through the system and call for more robust status checks.
• Chiefs reply that many border-area problems—drug trafficking, human smuggling, trespassing, and theft—are handled under state criminal law, with federal agents leading immigration-specific cases.
• Coordination without formal 287(g) task forces is possible: agencies can still share information and support large federal operations when asked.

Summary of the 2025 landscape

• Only a handful of agencies hold formal 287(g) links—mostly jail-only.
• Street-level immigration enforcement by local police is now rare.
• One new task force agreement in 2025 is limited and reactive, not proactive.
• The legislature’s push to mandate cooperation stalled with a veto, preserving local choice.
• ICE continues to screen jails, run its own operations, and set national priorities; local police focus on calls for service and criminal cases.

The net effect is a quieter landscape for local immigration policing: fewer fears for immigrant families during routine interactions with police, and more officer time devoted to violent crime, property crime, and overdose response.

What this means going forward

• Departments will continue to review policy as court rulings and state laws evolve, but most do not foresee a return to the old SB 1070 playbook.
• Years of outreach—hiring bilingual officers, expanding community engagement, and setting clear rules for status questions—aim to rebuild trust.
• Reintroducing task force-style policing risks undoing progress and reducing cooperation on serious crime.

The practical message to Arizona residents: officers focus on state crimes and community safety. Victims and witnesses should report abuse, wage theft, and threats without fear. Immigration enforcement remains primarily a federal responsibility.

Whether this approach holds will depend on future elections, legislative proposals, and court rulings. For now, the state that once symbolized local immigration crackdowns is choosing a different path—one that balances constitutional limits, public safety goals, and the lived reality of immigrant communities across Arizona.