Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Action Immigration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pinal County supervisors authorize outside counsel to challenge 287(g) memorandum with DHS/ICE
Summary
At a Jan. 30 special session, the Pinal County Board of Supervisors voted to authorize the firm Snell & Wilmer to initiate civil action seeking to void or enjoin a Memorandum of Agreement (287(g) task force model) dated Aug. 28, 2025 that the agenda said had been executed by the county attorney and DHS/ICE without prior board authorization.
PINAL COUNTY, Ariz. — The Pinal County Board of Supervisors on Jan. 30 voted to authorize outside counsel Snell & Wilmer to pursue civil action seeking to void or enjoin a Memorandum of Agreement described in the agenda as a 287(g) task force model dated Aug. 28, 2025.
The action, taken during a special session, followed a recess into executive session earlier in the meeting. After the board returned to open session, a supervisor moved to approve the authorization, the motion was seconded and the board voted in favor; the transcript records three supervisors saying "aye" and the motion passed.
The agenda text introduced the item as a request for "discussion, approval or disapproval to authorize outside counsel Snell and Wilmer to initiate civil action to void or enjoin the memorandum of agreement 287g task force model dated 08/28/2025 executed by the county attorney and Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration, and Customs Enforcement without prior board authorization." The transcript does not record additional details of planned legal arguments, a timetable for filing, or which supervisor moved or seconded the motion.
Vice Chairman Surdy participated by phone and said he had no questions during the discussion; county attorney staff Ian Durrani and Clerk of the Board Miss Kennedy were recorded as present. The meeting adjourned soon after the vote.
The board did not, in the recorded transcript, provide further public explanation in the meeting for why the county attorney had executed the agreement without prior board authorization or describe any specific legal basis that will be used in the contemplated civil action. The agenda entry and the vote indicate the board authorized counsel to pursue litigation to void or enjoin the specified memorandum, but the transcript does not show any additional motions, amendments, or public comment on the item.
Next steps noted in the meeting record are limited to the board's approval itself; the transcript does not specify filing dates, court venues, or any subsequent deadlines.
