An Arizona judge says Pinal County Attorney Brad Miller was not allowed to sign an agreement with the federal Department of Homeland Security to allow his prosecutors to enforce federal immigration laws.
Miller signed the 287(g) agreement last year; the Pinal County Board of Supervisors then sued, arguing his office doesn’t have the authority to enter into such a deal.
Jessica Pishko, an independent journalist and lawyer, joined The Show to talk about it. She’s also author of the book "The Highest Law in the Land: How the Unchecked Power of Sheriffs Threatens Democracy."
Full conversation
MARK BRODIE: Jessica, good morning. Thanks for being here.
JESSICA PISHKO: Thanks for having me.
MARK BRODIE: So, when you read through the judge’s decision in this case, what stands out to you?
JESSICA PISHKO: I think the thing to understand about this judge’s decision in particular is that it’s pretty brief and to the point. He makes his decision not based on political reasons, but simply a statutory reading of Arizona state law.
So, you know, the bulk of his argument was simply that Arizona state law does not allow the county attorney’s office to enter into contracts with the federal government without county board approval. And then he finds that the 287(g) agreement falls into that category of contracts the county attorney cannot enter into without .... county approval.
MARK BRODIE: And that was essentially the argument that the Board of Supervisors was making, right? It wasn’t so much we don’t want this kind of activity in the county, it’s that you, county attorney, can’t do this.
JESSICA PISHKO: Yes, that’s correct. The Board of Supervisors had essentially made an argument to say that the county attorney, Brad Miller, simply could not enter into this 287(g) agreement without approval from the Board of Supervisors.
Now, I think two important pieces of context. One is that, you know, since he became county attorney in 2024, Brad Miller has been fighting with the Pinal County Board of Supervisors over a variety of other things, including people who he hired and some other parts of his, you know, beginning of his administration. So, he started his term already contentious with the county board.
And second, I think one of the things the county board knew right away was that Brad Miller had entered into a 287(g) task force agreement, which is a specific agreement that is more active. In other words, it deputizes officers, police officers usually, or sheriff’s deputies, to go into the community and enforce immigration law. Now, the Pinal County sheriff has a 287(g) agreement, but it is limited to the jail. And so the Board of Supervisors has expressed no interest in a task force agreement, which is more aggressive.
MARK BRODIE: So, how significant is — and you kind of alluded to this — this is, typically these 287(g) agreements are with sheriffs’ departments, right? Like with a county sheriff. How significant is it that a county attorney’s office tried to get involved in this?
JESSICA PISHKO: I think it is significant, particularly in terms of the local politics of Pinal County. Now, you know, one thing to bear in mind about Brad Miller is that he, you know, came into office after representing some of the so-called "fake electors," you know, in Arizona. So, these were people who were accused of conspiracy, fraud and forgery for submitting, you know, fake electoral votes for Trump in 2020.
Now, what’s important about that is that when he became county attorney, Brad Miller has continued to spout many of these same conspiracy theories. His decision to join 287(g), which he justifies under kind of — I think he has like these dubious reasons why he wants to join 287(g) that I don’t think are correct — seem to conceal his real intent, which is to further ally himself with the MAGA movement. And he seems to want to take more power to his office. So, in other words, he’s claiming that he’s a law enforcement office so that he can send his investigators into the community to do some form of law enforcement.
Now, with midterms coming up, I do think it’s also, you know, something to think about the fact that you have other agencies claiming that they have policing power in the county, and that is something that most people do not want.
MARK BRODIE: Well, I guess so like from a practical standpoint, is there a big discrepancy or difference between what investigators from, for example, the sheriff’s department and the county attorney’s Office would be doing? Like is there a big difference between having, you know, investigators from the sheriff’s office investigating potential immigration law violations versus those from the county attorney’s office?
JESSICA PISHKO: I would say yes. And the reason is that, look, the sheriff’s office and city police, of course, are responsible for going out into the streets and enforcing and enforcing laws, right? Like traffic laws, investigating crimes, various other things.
The other thing the sheriff’s office does is that they manage the jail. And this is where the Pinal County sheriff’s 287(g) operates is in the jail context where you have people who have already been arrested, right? And so in that case, the immigration enforcement is happening to a segment of people who have already been arrested for something else.
Now, investigators in the county attorney’s office usually are there to support the prosecution. They generally do things like interview witnesses, maybe they visit the crime scene, ... they might do some re-investigation, but they’re really there to support the prosecution. And as a result, they are not on the street enforcing law. That is not their job.
And so to present your investigators as immigration enforcement would really only serve to intimidate people like witnesses who are the bulk of the population that these investigators interface with, right? Like witnesses, victims, people who are involved in or have been victimized by people being criminally prosecuted. That’s who those investigators are talking to. They’re not out on the street solving crimes.
MARK BRODIE: OK. So, we should point out that the county attorney’s office has suggested that an appeal might be coming.
But Jessica, I’m wondering like in the last 30 seconds or so we have, are there other county attorneys or district attorneys across the country who are looking at this, or who may be looking to to sign a similar kind of agreement?
JESSICA PISHKO: I think there’s very few. My understanding is I think there’s one in Florida, although I do not know how that prosecutor is using their 287(g) agreement. But, you know, I want to say that I think that this is this decision, you know, for Arizona is good, because I do think it assures the people of the state that, you know, courts are not interested in letting county attorney’s offices expand their mandate beyond prosecuting people who have already been arrested.
MARK BRODIE: OK, we’ll have to leave it there. That is Jessica Pishko, a journalist, lawyer and author. Jessica, thanks as always, I appreciate it.
JESSICA PISHKO: Thank you.
-
Mexico’s foreign secretary says 14,000 Mexican nationals remain in immigration detention in the United States as Mexico pursues consular and legal action. -
Lawyers who spoke to KPBS said immigration judges are now ordering bond amounts that previously were only used for criminals on international wanted lists. The U.S. Department of Justice says the courts are following the law and that the claims are "baseless." -
Assistant Chief Patrol Agent Mike Wisniewski says this latest surge comes on the heels of a similar operation last month, which led to the arrest of dozens of undocumented immigrants. -
A kitchen manager at the center of the Zipps Sports Grill immigration raids has been sentenced to five months in federal prison for his role in hiring undocumented workers. -
Every year, Arizona State University Barrett Honors College professor Abby Wheatley brings her class on transnational migration to the Arizona borderlands.
