Miller, Pinal BOS Clash over ICE Partnership Plan

PHOENIX – A Superior Court judge has temporarily blocked Pinal County Attorney Brad Miller from implementing his office’s 287(g) Task Force Model agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, escalating a dispute between the Pinal County Board of Supervisors over contracting authority and the independence of elected county officials.

Presiding Judge Joseph R. Georgini has issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting Miller from taking action to enforce the agreement and set an order-to-show-case hearing for February 25th, 2026, at 9:00 a.m.

The Board filed suit after Miller declined to terminate the agreement, arguing that only the Board has the authority to enter into contracts on behalf of the county. The complaint asserts that A.R.S. § 11-532, which outlines the county attorney’s duties, does not authorize independent execution of intergovernmental agreements, and further contends that under A.R.S. § 11-441, the sheriff – not the county attorney – holds statutory authority to preserve the peace and make arrests.

At issue is the Task Force Model of the federal 287(g) program, which allows ICE to deputize trained local personnel to participate in supervised operations targeting specific offenders. Pinal County already participates in the Jail Enforcement Model through the Sheriff’s Office, which conducts immigration screening after booking.

Miller maintains that the Task Force Model is distinct from the jail-based program and provides an additional enforcement tool focused on individuals with documented criminal histories. According to the County Attorney’s Office, operations would be warrant-based and conducted under ICE supervision. The office states it is not conducting patrols or immigration sweeps and argues that Arizona law permits county attorneys to employ AZPOST-certified sworn investigators.

The Board, relying on outside counsel, declared the agreement void and characterized the action as exceeding the County Attorney’s authority. Supervisors have also referred Miller to the Arizona Attorney General’s Office regarding alleged misuse of public monies and record-retention concerns tied to staffing matters within his office.

Miller disputes the Board’s interpretation, emphasizing that a legal opinion is not a court ruling and that constitutional officers operate independently within their statutory domains. A representative for the County Attorney’s Office stated Miller had not been formally served with the complaint or injunction at the time the Board publicly announced the court action.

The February hearing will determine whether the temporary restraining order remains in place and may clarify whether a county attorney has independent authority to enter into federal law-enforcement agreements, as well as delineate the boundaries between county boards and independently elected officials.