Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs and Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes pushed back yet again against expanded cooperation with federal deportation efforts, framing the issue as a matter of constitutional limits and local authority. That approach drew criticism in a border state where voters prioritize immigration enforcement and public safety.
The debate intensified after border czar Tom Homan warned sanctuary cities could face an increased federal enforcement presence. Hobbs responded by claiming those actions could put Arizona “at risk,” while Mayes argued the federal government cannot require state cooperation without violating the Tenth Amendment, according to the Arizona Capitol Times.
The legal debate, however, extends beyond whether states can refuse cooperation. In Arizona v. United States, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the federal government holds primary authority over immigration enforcement under the Supremacy Clause. At the same time, Printz v. United States established that the federal government cannot compel state officials to carry out federal law.
Recent Department of Justice lawsuits against sanctuary jurisdictions centered on the distinction between declining cooperation and actively obstructing federal immigration enforcement operations. In its lawsuit against Boston’s sanctuary policies, the U.S. Department of Justice complaint argued local laws created “obstacles to federal immigration enforcement” and interfered with federal authority over immigration law under the Supremacy Clause. The nuance is that the state and local governments do not need to help with the actual deportations, but they cannot inhibit customs officials from doing their job.
Republicans increasingly warn that resistance-to-cooperation creates confusion between local, state, and federal authorities while weakening confidence in immigration enforcement. They argue Arizona leaders should focus on coordination with federal agencies and not on escalating political conflict surrounding deportation operations.
