Arizona AG Backs Phoenix’s Stand Against ICE Access, Rejects GOP’s Legal Challenge

Phoenix’s bold move to restrict federal immigration enforcement access on city property just scored a major legal win. Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes dismissed a GOP complaint accusing the city of illegally interfering with ICE operations, making clear that Phoenix is within its rights to say no.

Last month, the Phoenix city council passed the Community Transparency Initiative, which prohibits federal agents from using city facilities as bases for civil immigration enforcement actions without explicit permission from the city manager. This policy targets ICE’s routine practice of staging raids and processing undocumented immigrants on local property. Phoenix’s exceptions include situations like pursuing fleeing suspects or complying with judicial warrants, but the city drew a firm line on allowing unfettered federal use of its spaces.

Republican state Rep. Quang Nguyen quickly challenged the policy, claiming that Arizona law requires local governments to enforce immigration laws to the fullest extent federal law allows. He warned that Phoenix’s restrictions could lead to lawsuits or loss of state funds.

Mayes, however, delivered a clear rebuke of that argument. She emphasized that federal law does not mandate local cooperation with immigration enforcement and that Arizona law, while barring local governments from actively obstructing federal agents, does not compel them to assist. “Refusing to help the federal government is not the same as impeding its goals,” Mayes wrote.

The attorney general pointed to multiple legal safeguards supporting local autonomy, including the anti-commandeering doctrine under the Tenth Amendment, which prevents the federal government from forcing states or cities to enforce federal laws. She also noted that federal immigration enforcement partnerships with local agencies are voluntary and that administrative warrants used by ICE do not carry the same weight as judicial warrants, which Phoenix respects.

Nguyen’s claim that the policy violates the Supremacy Clause and risks discriminatory treatment was also dismissed. Mayes highlighted that the policy applies broadly to all civil law enforcement actions on city property, not just immigration enforcement, and that incidental effects on federal officials’ work do not amount to unconstitutional regulation.

Ultimately, Mayes framed Phoenix’s policy as a standard exercise of local control over municipal property, not an unlawful interference with federal authority. “When a locality acts ‘as a proprietor’ to adopt regulations governing activities in its own facilities, there is no impermissible regulation of the federal government,” she wrote.

This ruling is a significant win for cities pushing back against federal immigration overreach and asserting their rights to protect community spaces from becoming staging grounds for raids. It underscores the growing legal recognition that local governments can and should resist being coerced into enforcing harsh federal immigration policies.

Phoenix’s stand is part of a broader trend of municipalities asserting their autonomy amid aggressive federal immigration enforcement tactics. With Mayes’ backing, the city can continue to safeguard its residents and property without fear of state retaliation or legal blowback.

For those fighting against unchecked immigration raids and the erosion of local control, this is a clear message: cities have the legal tools to say no to ICE. And Arizona’s top law enforcement officer just confirmed it.