Pinal County Board sues Attorney over unauthorized ICE agreement

Pinal County Board Challenges ICE Agreement by County Attorney

In a significant legal confrontation, Pinal County’s Board of Supervisors has decided to challenge County Attorney Brad Miller in court over his controversial agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This decision emerged after an emergency session held by the board, resulting in a unanimous vote to seek outside legal support for civil action against Miller.

The core of the dispute centers around a 287(g) agreement that Miller signed. This agreement authorizes certain trained investigators within his office to enforce immigration laws, a practice traditionally utilized by local law enforcement to initiate deportation actions against arrested undocumented individuals.

According to the supervisors, Miller’s agreement with ICE is invalid as it bypassed the board’s authorization. However, Miller contends that his elected position over a law enforcement agency grants him the necessary authority for such agreements.

In a letter dated January 27, addressed to the board’s external legal advisors, Miller expressed no intention of withdrawing from the agreement with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). He stated, “Please convey to the Board that I remain willing to discuss the Agreement with them in open session. I would be happy to engage in a productive dialogue to explain how my office has implemented and complied with the terms of the Agreement in cooperation with DHS to keep our community safe and discharge my statutory duties under Arizona law.”

🚨Update🚨

The County Attorney is open to discussing the agreement in a public setting with the BOS and does not plan to end Pinal County’s participation in the 287(g) program with DHS. pic.twitter.com/uSFVGtKwtY

— Pinal County Attorney’s Office (@PCAOAZ) January 29, 2026

The board’s external counsel had previously requested Miller to detail his steps for terminating the agreement by January 28, following a legal opinion from the business law firm Snell & Wilmer. The firm concluded that the 287(g) agreement was void due to its lack of approval from the Board of Supervisors, as mandated by both state and federal law.