Yuyun Lusiyani
A federal judge has decisively denied efforts to remove judicial oversight of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO), asserting that the agency continues to exhibit troubling racial disparities in traffic arrests involving Latino individuals. The ruling, issued on September 10 by U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow, emphasized a lack of sufficient evidence that the MCSO’s reform efforts would endure without continued legal monitoring, marking another critical chapter in a nearly two-decade-long legal battle over racial profiling.
Judge Snow’s comprehensive 72-page ruling underscored the historical context of racial profiling within the department, particularly highlighting the role of current Sheriff Jerry Sheridan. Sheridan, who served as the second-in-command under the infamous former Sheriff Joe Arpaio, was found to have actively obstructed court-ordered reforms and stymied investigations throughout the duration of the case. The judge’s opinion, which mentions Sheridan 30 times, painted a stark picture of his past conduct. "Then Chief Deputy, now Sheriff, Sheridan in particular was found to have abused his authority over MCSO’s internal affairs process by obstructing and manipulating misconduct investigations and disciplinary proceedings — including those involving himself — to shield deputies and Command Staff from accountability and undermine the enforcement of remedies designed to address the constitutional violations against the Plaintiff class," Judge Snow wrote.
The MCSO declined to comment directly on Judge Snow’s specific statements regarding Sheriff Sheridan. However, Sheridan has previously vocalized his disagreement with the judge’s characterization of his actions, telling Arizona Luminaria and ProPublica, "I was very truthful. To this day, I think he got that wrong about me." Despite this, the federal court remains unconvinced that the necessary institutional changes have become ingrained enough to withstand the removal of external scrutiny.
A Decades-Long Battle Against Racial Profiling
The federal monitorship of Arizona’s largest sheriff’s office traces its origins back to a landmark 2007 class-action racial profiling lawsuit, Melendres v. Arpaio. This lawsuit brought to light widespread constitutional violations against Latino residents of Maricopa County under then-Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s leadership. The case was named for Manuel de Jesus Melendres Ortega, a legal resident who was unjustly arrested during one of Arpaio’s notorious traffic sweeps. These sweeps, which many Arizonans now see as a precursor to broader federal immigration enforcement tactics, prompted the lawsuit and exposed a pattern of discriminatory policing.
Under Arpaio’s tenure, Maricopa County became an early and controversial testing ground for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) 287(g) program. This program deputized local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration laws, leading to a significant increase in immigration-related arrests and, critically, a pervasive culture of racial profiling. Latino motorists were disproportionately targeted, subjected to stops, detentions, and searches based on their perceived ethnicity rather than probable cause.
In 2013, following a judicial finding that the department was out of compliance with federal law, Judge Snow issued a series of sweeping orders. These included mandates for the department to meticulously document all traffic stops to identify patterns of racial bias, to employ additional investigators dedicated to probing reports of deputy misconduct, and, crucially, to appoint a federal monitor to oversee the department’s compliance with the court-ordered settlement. The objective was clear: to dismantle systemic bias and restore trust within the diverse communities of Maricopa County, home to an estimated 1.5 million Latino or Hispanic people whose constitutional rights are protected under this ongoing legal action.
Persistent Disparities and the Burden of Proof
Thirteen years into this intensive oversight, the MCSO has yet to definitively persuade Judge Snow that its deputies have ceased racially profiling Latino drivers or that it adequately investigates allegations of deputy misconduct. The recent motion to terminate oversight, filed by Maricopa County in December and subsequently joined by the MCSO, argued that the violations were no longer occurring and that the department had reformed sufficiently. However, Judge Snow’s ruling directly refuted these claims, citing compelling data that demonstrated the continued existence of racial disparities reminiscent of the Arpaio era.
A pivotal aspect of the judge’s analysis relied on traffic reports collected by the sheriff’s office itself. An independent analysis of these reports, conducted on behalf of the plaintiffs by a computer science professor from the University of California, Berkeley, revealed stark and statistically significant disparities. The analysis approximated that Hispanic motorists in Maricopa County are 40% more likely to be arrested than white motorists, are stopped for durations 30% longer than white motorists, and are 2.5 times more likely to be searched than their white counterparts. "Those disparities remain," Judge Snow unequivocally stated, placing the onus on the defendants to explain these glaring discrepancies. Their failure to do so was a key factor in the denial of their motion. To finally end court oversight, the sheriff’s office must demonstrate continuous and full compliance with the reforms for a period of three consecutive years.
A prior investigation by Arizona Luminaria and ProPublica further highlighted this ongoing challenge, revealing that despite annual reviews by the monitor consistently showing persistent racial disparities in traffic stops, Sheriff Sheridan and county leaders continued to advocate for an end to court oversight. This disconnect between internal assessments, external monitoring reports, and judicial findings underscores the deep-seated nature of the issues at hand.
Sheridan’s Legacy and Leadership Under Scrutiny
Sheriff Jerry Sheridan, a Republican who inherited the settlement upon taking office in January 2025, has been a central figure in this protracted legal saga. His history within the department, particularly his role during the Arpaio years, has been a significant point of contention. In 2016, Sheridan was found in civil contempt of court for denying knowledge of Judge Snow’s explicit order to cease illegal immigration arrests. While he has consistently maintained his truthfulness, his actions and the court’s findings cast a long shadow over his ability to lead the department toward genuine reform.
A 2025 evaluation by the federal monitor noted that while the department had achieved compliance with over 90% of the court-ordered requirements, it critically fell short in the two areas most directly impacting Latino drivers: the elimination of racial bias in traffic stops and the prompt and adequate investigation of allegations of deputy misconduct. These failures represent the very core of the original lawsuit and the fundamental reasons for continued oversight.
In their attempt to end federal oversight, Sheridan and county supervisors argued that the racially biased Arpaio-era policies had been purged from department policy and that there were few complaints of misconduct by deputies against Hispanic drivers. Their motion asserted, "MCSO has reformed its policies, improved its workforce, and implemented mechanisms to assure that racial profiling never occurs. This litigation has been a success, and the time has come to allow MCSO to stand on its own two feet, freed of oversight."
Shifting Political Winds and the Cost Controversy
The legal landscape surrounding the MCSO’s oversight has also been influenced by national political shifts. Since joining the Melendres case and settlement in 2015, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) had consistently supported Judge Snow’s federal oversight and the implemented reforms. However, with the return of President Donald Trump to the White House, the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division informed the court in January that it now supported ending oversight. This reversal by the federal government, traditionally a key advocate for civil rights enforcement, marked a significant development and raised concerns among civil rights proponents.
The cost of the federal monitorship has been a recurring point of contention, frequently cited by county leaders as a primary reason for seeking an end to oversight. Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Chair Kate Brophy McGee and Vice Chair Debbie Lesko, both Republicans, have been vocal critics of the financial burden. In a joint statement, they expressed disappointment with the judge’s ruling, arguing, "The court has maintained an unelected and unaccountable federal monitor over MCSO — creating bureaucracy and regulatory burdens that have cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. That ‘oversight’ comes at the cost of public safety, as the county must pay the monitor and his staff by foregoing other critical services."
However, this argument regarding excessive costs has been significantly undermined by judicial findings. Following complaints from Sheridan and Republican county supervisors that oversight costs topped $200 million, the court ordered an independent audit of the sheriff’s office spending. The audit findings, shared in 2025, revealed that nearly 72% of the sheriff’s office reported spending, amounting to $163 million, was misattributed or misappropriated. Only $63 million was appropriately charged to the settlement, suggesting a substantial mismanagement of funds by the MCSO rather than an inherently exorbitant cost of oversight. This revelation significantly weakened the county’s financial argument against continued monitoring.
Mixed Reactions and Future Implications
Reactions to Judge Snow’s ruling have been varied among the key stakeholders. Officials with the sheriff’s office, while expressing overall disappointment, welcomed certain aspects of the judge’s order. Sgt. Joaquin Enriquez stated, "We believe MCSO has implemented durable remedies for violations that occurred 19 years and three administrations ago. We are encouraged that the Court has provided a framework on eliminating portions of the Order that are no longer necessary and focusing compliance efforts on the remaining issues to be addressed." Speaking to KTAR News, Sheriff Sheridan echoed this sentiment, acknowledging positive elements but questioning whether his office could ever fully satisfy all parties involved. "We at the sheriff’s office feel we’re in compliance with all the court’s orders," Sheridan said, "But the court-appointed monitor does not believe so. It’s a matter of us making a pitch to the court directly, not through the monitor."
In contrast, Steve Gallardo, the sole Democrat on the five-member Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, has consistently opposed ending oversight, advocating for continued progress in eliminating racial bias in policing. The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona (ACLU), which originally filed the lawsuit on behalf of citizens and legal residents caught in Arpaio’s sweeps, celebrated the ruling. Christine Wee, senior staff attorney for the ACLU of Arizona, emphasized the significance of the decision: "Any other decision would have had a devastating impact on Maricopa County’s Latino residents. The Court’s decision recognizes that any current and future misconduct committed by MCSO will not be tolerated. Simply put, MCSO is not ready for the court-ordered reforms to end."
The judge’s ruling itself provided a critical insight into its core rationale: there was no convincing evidence that the department would sustain its commitment to remedying the violations if external oversight were removed. "The record does not support a finding that, absent federal monitoring, Defendants are unlikely to resume the conduct that necessitated the Court’s injunctive Orders," the ruling explicitly stated. This highlights a fundamental distrust by the court in the durability of MCSO’s self-governance regarding civil rights compliance.
Raul Piña, a member of the court-mandated community advisory board tasked with rebuilding trust between the sheriff’s office and Latino communities, offered a broader perspective on the challenges. Piña told Arizona Luminaria and ProPublica that the problems within the department transcend individual leaders, pointing instead to systemic issues that have enabled biased policing for an extended period. He argued that superficial changes are insufficient, stating, "You can paint the house, but if the foundation is broken you will have the same problem." His observation underscores the profound institutional reform still required.
The decade-plus of federal legal oversight over the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department offers a stark illustration of the profound difficulties inherent in reforming law enforcement agencies grappling with deeply entrenched racial bias. Criminal justice experts often cite such cases as evidence that true, lasting change often requires sustained external pressure and accountability. The Maricopa case, now spanning multiple administrations and nearly two decades, serves as a poignant reminder that while policies can be rewritten on paper, shifting institutional culture and ensuring equitable practices in policing is a far more complex and enduring challenge. The judge’s recent decision ensures that for the foreseeable future, the MCSO will continue its journey towards reform under the vigilant eye of the federal court.
Jia Lissa
Joko Widodo
Eva Lovia
Pevita Pearce