- Pima County supervisors voted to ban federal immigration enforcement on all county-owned properties and facilities.
- The board approved drafting measures prohibiting masks for law enforcement and requiring visible identification on duty.
- New policies reflect a growing divide in Arizona between local property restrictions and state-mandated federal cooperation.
(PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA) — The Pima County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 on February 3, 2026, to direct staff to draft an ordinance barring federal immigration enforcement, including by ICE, on county-owned properties.
Supervisors took the step after more than 20 residents testified for over an hour, with many raising civil rights concerns and drawing comparisons between proposed detention facilities and historical abuses.
Supervisor Steve Christy, the board’s sole Republican, dissented and offered an alternative direction, proposing that county facilities be offered for federal use.
Alongside the draft “no federal immigration enforcement” ordinance, supervisors also approved drafting two related measures that moved in parallel during the same meeting.
One draft would ban masks for all law enforcement—city, county, state and federal—while on duty and require visible identification.
Another measure would take the form of a resolution opposing a new ICE detention center in nearby Marana, citing community and economic impacts.
Supervisor Rex Scott said the county’s authority has limits because Marana operates as a separate jurisdiction, even as the county weighs actions tied to immigration enforcement within its own operations.
Tuesday’s votes did not enact new rules immediately, but they set in motion the development of final texts that would govern how county-owned properties and resources are used.
Supporters framed the county action as a way to protect civil rights and community trust, particularly when residents fear contact with immigration authorities.
Public testimony, delivered before the vote, included arguments that enforcement activities around local government facilities deter residents from seeking help, participating in civic life, or reporting crime.
The push at the county level followed similar action by the Tucson City Council on January 21, 2026, to bar federal enforcement on city property.
That city vote unfolded amid nationwide anti-ICE protests, including a reported 6,000 Tucson participants.
City and county actions typically apply to their own properties and internal policies, rather than extending control over federal agents operating under federal authority.
The Pima County Board of Supervisors’ actions also came as other local governments elsewhere pursued comparable approaches that restrict civil immigration enforcement activity on public property.
In California, Los Angeles County Supervisors unanimously approved Supervisor Lindsey P. Horvath’s motion to initiate an ordinance creating “ICE-free zones.”
The available details did not specify the date of the unanimous approval, but the motion followed a January 13 discussion.
Los Angeles County’s ordinance process would prohibit the use of county property for civil immigration enforcement staging, processing, or operations.
That effort responded to a October 2025 ICE action at Deane Dana Friendship Park that disrupted access, according to the available details.
The Los Angeles County proposal includes signage and a permit process for operations, along with exceptions for criminal enforcement or judicial warrants.
Chair Hilda L. Solis framed the purpose in blunt terms, saying the effort would protect communities from “fear, danger, and recklessness.”
In San Diego County, supervisors passed a board policy on December 10, tied to Human Rights Day, that bars county funds from aiding federal immigration enforcement.
The year for that December 10 vote was not specified in the available details.
San Diego County’s policy builds on California Senate Bill 54, the California Values Act, and officials described it as bringing local practices into alignment with those statewide limits.
The policy ends Sheriff’s practices of warrantless ICE transfers and release notifications, according to the available details.
Ian Seruelo, Chair of the San Diego Immigrant Rights Consortium, praised the move.
Supervisors Nora Vargas, Monica Montgomery-Steppe, and Terra Lawson Remer supported the policy, which aligns San Diego with eight other California counties exceeding SB 54 protections, according to the available details.
The California steps formed a contrast with developments elsewhere in Arizona, where local officials moved toward closer ties with federal immigration enforcement under the 287(g) program.
In Pinal County, supervisors voted to sue County Attorney Brad Miller after he entered a 287(g) agreement with ICE without board approval.
Officials announced that 287(g) agreement on December 8, 2025, and described it as targeting violent offenders like child traffickers.
A January 21, 2026, legal opinion declared the agreement void under state and federal law, according to the available details.
Even with that opinion, Pinal retains a jail enforcement model that allows citizenship inquiries and ICE handovers for arrestees, regardless of conviction, the available details show.
At the state level, Arizona Senate Republicans approved a bill, as of March 5, 2026, that mandates 287(g) cooperation by sheriffs and police.
The diverging approaches underscore how local and state governments increasingly use their own authorities—over property, funding, and local policy—to shape how immigration enforcement plays out on the ground.
In Pima County, supervisors focused their February 3, 2026, direction on county-owned properties, aiming to block federal immigration enforcement activity in spaces the county controls.
The proposed ordinance would not, by itself, rewrite federal law or remove federal power to enforce it.
Federal immigration enforcement authority flows from INA § 287, 8 U.S.C. § 1357, and 8 CFR § 287, and local measures generally cannot directly stop federal officers from enforcing federal law.
Instead, local policies more commonly regulate access to, and use of, local property and local resources, including whether federal agencies can stage or conduct civil immigration enforcement operations on local government premises.
Those limits create recurring legal friction over when a local restriction becomes an obstacle to federal enforcement, and when it remains a permissible exercise of local control over local assets.
Legal challenges often invoke preemption doctrines and anti-commandeering principles in disputes between federal authority and state or local action.
The available details cited Murphy v. NCAA (2018) and Printz v. United States (1997) as cases often referenced in these debates, reflecting arguments over the boundary between federal power and attempts to compel or restrain local participation.
California efforts may be structured differently because of state sanctuary law frameworks such as SB 54, which gives local officials a statewide legal backdrop for restricting assistance to federal immigration enforcement.
Even so, the practical effect of any new ordinance or policy depends on the final text, how it is implemented, and whether it draws litigation or federal responses.
In Pima County, supervisors’ direction to staff launches a drafting process that will shape those details, including how broadly the restriction reaches across county-owned sites and what exceptions, if any, are written into the final language.
The county’s parallel proposals on masks and visible identification for on-duty law enforcement also aim at how residents experience policing and enforcement encounters, including when federal agents operate in or around local facilities.
The measure opposing a proposed ICE detention center in Marana adds another front to the local debate, focused on community and economic impacts tied to detention operations.
Scott’s remarks about the limits of county authority over Marana highlight a basic constraint running through these local moves: jurisdictions can set rules for their own property and spending, but their reach typically stops at the border of their own governmental control.
Taken together, the February 3, 2026, votes placed the Pima County Board of Supervisors among a growing set of local governments using property rules, funding restrictions, and internal policies to respond to immigration enforcement pressures, while Arizona lawmakers and other counties push in the opposite direction through 287(g) cooperation.
