Conservative group files lawsuit over Hobbs' website informing Arizonans of rights against ICE

A national conservative organization known for filing public records lawsuits wants information on how much was spent in tax dollars by Katie Hobbs to inform Arizonans of their rights if they are stopped by immigration agents.

And Judicial Watch wants to know what evidence she had — if any — that residents actually have been denied their rights before she launched the website.

The lawsuit filed in Maricopa County Superior Court says the governor has not yet provided answers to the questions that they asked in February right after Hobbs launched knowyourrights.az.gov in both Spanish and English. It provides a point-by-point list of what people can do when confronted by someone from Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Some of it is basic advice in any situation with law enforcement, like the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and the ability to question whether you are being detained or are free to leave.

But other points are far more specific, like the ability to refuse to allow ICE agents into a home unless they have a judicial — and not an administrative — warrant.

And the site features a video of Hobbs addressing viewers.

"I share the fear and anger of many Arizonans who, over the past year, have seen far too many instances of federal agents denying us our right to peaceful protests, in some instances unlawfully detaining and arresting American citizens," the governor said. She also cited "horrific cases" in Minnesota where ICE agents shot and killed two people.

The lawsuit does not allege that Hobbs did anything illegal in creating the website. But in a prepared statement, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said she should be required to comply with public records laws and answer questions about how the site came to be.

"Gov. Hobbs is using taxpayer resources to promote a website built around claims about federal law enforcement, yet her administration refuses to provide the public with basic information about its costs, development, and the records supporting those claims," he said.

Judicial Watch sees a political motive in the website.

The organization points out that Hobbs last year vetoed Republican-crafted legislation that specifically authorized cooperation by state and local government with federal agencies in enforcing immigration law.

It also required that the state prison and local jails honor "detainer" requests from ICE, holding people who would otherwise be released until they can be picked up for deportation. And it would have required the attorney general, on request from any legislator, to investigate any public entity suspected of adopting any ordinance or practice that restricts cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

Judicial Watch described the legislation as "a reasonable, common-sense proposal supported by Arizona sheriffs to ensure all levels of law enforcement were working with the federal government to enforce our laws and protect our citizens from harm."

But Hobbs, in her veto message, cited the work she said her administration has done to secure the border, cut the flow of drugs and disrupt cartel operations.

"I will continue to work with the federal government on true border security, but we should not force state and local officials to take marching orders from Washington, D.C.," the governor wrote.

That led to the request for records — and not just about the costs of production.

Judicial Watch wants all documents or reports indicating if or when Arizona residents actually have been denied the right to engage in peaceful protest by federal law enforcement. It also seeks information on those unlawfully detained, arrested, and shot or killed by federal officers — but, again, with the focus on situations involving Arizonans.

But it also is looking for any evidence that Hobbs had of the other side of the equation.

For example, Judicial Watch wants to know if the governor provided any advice, legal or otherwise, of what Arizonans should do if protesters come to their homes or places of worship and engage in activities like trespassing, disorderly conduct, assaults and threats. Ditto on telling Arizonans their rights if they are the victims of criminal conduct perpetrated by those not in the country legally.

And, at a broader level, Judicial Watch wants to know what information Hobbs gave to Arizonans "regarding their constitutionally protected rights to secure national borders and/or unimpeded access to federal law enforcement services."

Gubernatorial press aide Christian Slater said he is sure that there are some records to which Judicial Watch is entitled, at least on the issue of the cost of production. He would not comment on the other requests, including what data Hobbs had on incidents involving Arizonans, ICE officers, and protesters.

But he said there has been no deliberate delay.

"If the partisan extremists at Judicial Watch want their records faster, they should stop filing extremely broad public records requests requiring hours of taxpayer-funded staff time to review thousands of pages of documents," Slater said.

And he said he's convinced there is no evidence of any wrongdoing.

"When they get their documents here's what they'll learn: Gov. Hobbs is proud to protect our constitution and inform Arizonans of their rights," Slater said.

This isn't the first time Judicial Watch has gone to court in a claim that the governor was withholding records.

It filed suit last year claiming that Hobbs had ordered state police and National Guard to not cooperate with federal immigration authorities and then hid the fact.

But Judicial Watch produced no actual evidence she had issued such an order, instead relying on more general statements she made saying she would "stand up against actions that hurt our communities," though she dodged a question at that time of whether she would use her powers to prevent the wholesale deporting of those who entered the country illegally.

In that case, the governor's office did respond — but said there were no "responsive records." Judicial Watch eventually dropped the lawsuit.