ÃÛÌÒÓ°ÏñAV

Proposition 314 allows police to arrest people who cross the border at other than a port of entry.

In a new ruling, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Michael Valenzuela noted that a key provision is written so the law takes effect only if federal courts uphold a virtually identical statute in Texas. That Texas law, however, remains on hold while its legality is being considered by federal appellate courts.

Linking enforcement of Proposition 314 to what courts decide on the legality of Texas law, Valenzuela said, does not cede the legislature’s power to create a law to another, which it isn’t allowed to do.

“The legislature may properly make the applicability of a law contingent on another circumstance,’’ the judge wrote.

Living United for Change in Arizona, or LUCHA, filed suit earlier this year against the Arizona law.

The group had no better luck convincing the court to void other provisions.

Most notable is that the law allowing police to arrest suspected border crossers says that can happen only if they have “probable cause.’’ That includes witnessing someone entering the United States illegally, or having a recording of the event.

There is also a catch-all provision, however, that allows police to make an arrest if they have “any other constitutionally sufficient indicia of probable cause.’’

That is not defined in the legislation, though. Challengers say that opens the door for the law — if and when it takes effect — to be enforced in a discriminatory way.

Valenzuela sidestepped the question, however, precisely because this part of the law is not yet in effect and may never be enforceable, depending on what happens in the Texas case.

“Plaintiffs face no injury — and may never suffer injury,’’ the judge wrote, saying the claim is not legally “ripe’’ for a court to consider. He said the only way to decide the legality of the law “must be based on the facts as they exist and not what may occur in the future.’’

LUCHA also tried unsuccessfully to have the court void other provisions, including:

• Mandating that state and local agencies use a federal database to verify the immigration status of people seeking public benefits;
• Requiring state and local police to transport those being deported to the border through which they crossed;
• Spelling out that the state Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry must accept those who are arrested or convicted of violating the law against border crossing if local agencies lack the jail space.

Attorney Jim Barton, who represents LUCHA and the Arizona Center for Empowerment, which also sued, said he and his clients are studying the ruling. But he said an appeal is likely.

“We think the judge got it wrong,’’ Barton said.

But Senate President Warren Petersen, who had interceded in the case to defend the voter-approved law along with Attorney General Kris Mayes, praised the ruling as “upholding the will of voters who passed Prop. 314 to protect our communities from illegal crossings and fentanyl.’’

The Gilbert Republican also said it’s possible the new law — particularly the provision on state and local police arresting border crossers — may never need to be enforced. It depends, he said, on who in in the White House. He noted it was enacted before President Donald Trump took office in January, and said Trump “truly delivered the most secure border in U.S. history.’’

The most visible part of the measure, approved in November by a margin of 62.5 to 37.5, allows police to arrest those who enter Arizona from Mexico other than at a port of entry. It is modeled after SB 4, the similar law enacted in 2023 in Texas.

Before sending the final version to the ballot, however, Arizona lawmakers added other issues, which LUCHA also challenged.

One requires state and local agencies to use the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program to determine the legal status of those seeking benefits.

Barton said the problem with that is the Arizona Constitution says any voter-approved measure that carries a price tag also is required to come up with plan to fund it, not just right now but for what it will cost in the future. That includes use of the SAVE program, he said.

But Valenzuela wrote that the website for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which maintains the program, “shows that there is no cost for state, local, tribal and territorial government agencies to use SAVE.’’ No cost means no new mandatory spending, the judge said.

That leaves the question of whether there are other costs, such as for police having to drive offenders to the border to be deported and state prisons having to absorb any overflow of people charged with violating the law against crossing the border illegally.

A report by legislative budget staffers said there will be costs associated with arrests, prosecutions and incarcerations. Those include an estimated $41 million in law enforcement costs and $16.6 million for incarceration in just the first six months, with the latter figure estimated to hit $178 million by 2029.

But Valenzuela said these legal arguments suffer the same legal deficiency as the claim that the definition of “probable cause’’ is illegal: They are speculative unless and until the border-crosser law is enforceable here.

“The court is faced with provisions of the act that are not currently enforceable and may never be so,’’ the judge wrote.

LUCHA did not challenge another provision added to Prop. 314 on fentanyl sales.

Selling the drug already was a felony, punishable by a presumptive sentence of five years in prison. The new language in the ballot measure adds another five years if the seller knew the drug being sold was fentanyl and if it resulted in the death of another.