The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has taken a historic step to end federal oversight of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO), which is costing taxpayers millions of dollars each year.
Outside counsel for the Board filed a “Rule 60” motion which asks a federal court for relief from the injunctions in the Arpaio v. Melendres lawsuit. The motion argues:
- The original purpose of the Melendres lawsuit has been achieved.
- There’s no evidence of ongoing civil rights violations and no new allegations of targeted immigration enforcement.
- MCSO has achieved 100% compliance with required policy changes.
- There is now a durable system in place to ensure that the civil rights of Latino drivers are protected.
“This reformed Sheriff’s Office is a completely different agency than it was nearly 15 years ago,” said Chairman Thomas Galvin, District 2. “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 argues that because continued federal oversight is no longer equitable, justified, or tailored to any ongoing violation, the County is entitled to relief from the hundreds of prescriptive court orders tied to the Melendres case, many of which are unrelated to the original lawsuit. Maricopa County has spent more than $300 million to comply with four different Melendres court orders, with more than $30 million in fees spent on a court-appointed monitor alone.
Maricopa County argues that continued federal oversight “upsets the democratic process and America’s federalist structure by making local officials accountable to a federal court—based on the conduct of a former Sheriff who has been out of office for fourteen years.”
Rule 60(b)(5) permits a party to obtain relief from a judgment or order 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.”
