Pinal’s Miller Wins Round 1 in County’s ICE Ban

Pinal County Attorney Brad Miller scored an early procedural win Friday in his legal fight with the Pinal County Board of Supervisors over his office’s controversial partnership with federal immigration officials, after a judge ordered the case moved out of Pinal County. The Arizona Globe originally reported on this story on December 8, 2025.

In a ruling granting Miller’s request for a change of venue, Pinal County Superior Court determined the dispute should be transferred to Maricopa County Superior Court, citing Arizona venue statutes and finding Maricopa County “the most convenient and least objectionable” location for the litigation.

Miller’s office said the court rejected the supervisors’ request to transfer the case to Pima County, arguing that doing so would have made the lawsuit more costly and burdensome for taxpayers.

The underlying lawsuit centers on Miller’s “287(g) Task Force Model” agreement with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement — an arrangement that, in general, allows certain local personnel to assist with federal immigration enforcement under DHS oversight.

The Board of Supervisors sued after ordering Miller to terminate the agreement, contending he lacked authority to enter it without board approval and arguing the county sheriff — not the county attorney — is the proper local party for such agreements. 

A Pinal County judge issued a temporary restraining order earlier this month blocking Miller’s office from implementing or enforcing the 287(g) agreement and set an order-to-show-cause hearing for February 25, 2026.  

Miller’s office said Friday that the temporary restraining order expires February 20, 2026, under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b), and that his office will resume working with ICE “to track and remove dangerous criminals from the county.”

The supervisors, meanwhile, have framed the dispute as a separation-of-powers and contracting-authority issue, saying only the board can bind the county to contracts and authorize expenditures, and warning the agreement could blur lines between enforcement and prosecution functions. 

With the case now headed to Maricopa County, the court fight over who can approve — and implement — the agreement is expected to continue as judges weigh the merits.