Maricopa County Pushes to End Federal Oversight of Sheriff’s Office
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has initiated a critical move aimed at terminating federal supervision of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO), a measure that has been financially burdensome for taxpayers.
PHOENIX (Dec. 18, 2025)—In a landmark decision, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has filed a motion with a federal court to lift the judicial oversight of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO), citing significant taxpayer expenses.
The Board’s legal representatives submitted a “Rule 60” motion, requesting the court to lift injunctions from the Arpaio v. Melendres litigation. The motion outlines several key points:
- The initial objectives of the Melendres lawsuit have been met.
- No current evidence suggests ongoing civil rights infringements, nor are there new claims of targeted immigration enforcement.
- The MCSO has achieved full compliance with mandated policy revisions.
- A robust framework now exists to safeguard the civil rights of Latino motorists.
Chairman Thomas Galvin of District 2 remarked, “This reformed Sheriff’s Office is a completely different agency than it was nearly 15 years ago,” underscoring the significant changes within the department. He added, “The voters held the responsible parties accountable and voted them out. Since then, MCSO disbanded immigration-related units, implemented new policies and anti-bias trainings, and is a law enforcement agency we can be proud of. Further federal oversight is unnecessary and only serves to divert taxpayer dollars away from true public safety needs.”
The motion asserts that ongoing federal oversight is no longer fair, necessary, or fitting to any existing violations, thus warranting relief from numerous court orders linked to the Melendres case. These orders, many unrelated to the initial lawsuit, have cost Maricopa County over $300 million, including more than $30 million spent on a court-appointed monitor.
Maricopa County argues that such federal oversight undermines the democratic process and disrupts America’s federalist system by making local officials accountable to a federal court due to the actions of a former sheriff who left office fourteen years ago.
Under Rule 60(b)(5), a party can seek relief from a judgment if it “has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable.”
AUDIO: Chairman Galvin on KTAR >
Read More Here
