The Battle for the Fourth Amendment: How Pima County's Stand Against ICE Spotlights a National Assault on Liberty

The Facts: A Resolution, A Request, and A Constitutional Line in the Sand

In February 2024, the Pima County Board of Supervisors passed Resolution 2026-10, a measure that, at its core, draws a bright constitutional line. It prohibits county employees from granting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents consent to use county property—including buildings, parking lots, and other facilities—for civil immigration enforcement activities unless the agents present a valid judicial warrant. The resolution explicitly carves out exceptions where such assistance is required by law, such as for the execution of lawful court orders. The vote was 4-1, with Republican Supervisor Steve Christy dissenting.

This action did not occur in a vacuum. It is part of a growing national backlash against ICE practices, fueled by documented abuses and the tragic killings of individuals by federal agents. The resolution also criticized the widespread use of masks by federal agents and demanded clear identification to distinguish them from local officers. Locally, it followed incidents in Tucson where ICE officers used “less-lethal” weapons against observers. The city of Tucson passed a similar measure, and other municipalities, as reported by the Vera Institute, are taking comparable steps to limit cooperation and deny the use of public property for ICE operations that lack judicial oversight.

The central conflict arises from ICE’s routine use of administrative warrants. These are documents signed by Homeland Security officials, not judges. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) defends their use, arguing they are for individuals who have already received a final order of removal from an immigration judge and that immigrants “aren’t entitled to the same Fourth Amendment protections as U.S. citizens.” DHS has even claimed that administrative warrants can be used to enter private homes, a stance that directly challenges centuries of Anglo-American legal tradition protecting the home from warrantless intrusion.

The Political Challenge: State Legislators Versus Local Autonomy

On April 6, Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen, joined by Republican lawmakers T.J. Shope and John Kavanaugh, invoked Senate Bill 1487. This state law allows legislators to demand the Attorney General investigate whether a local ordinance violates state law. Petersen formally requested Attorney General Kris Mayes to probe Pima County’s resolution. His argument hinges on an Arizona statute that prohibits any official or agency from limiting or restricting the enforcement of federal immigration laws “to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.”

Petersen’s claim is sweeping. He argues the resolution would allow any member of the public to use a county parking lot while barring a federal immigration officer, thus restricting ICE’s congressionally mandated duties. Crucially, he frames the requirement for a judicial warrant as an extra-legal burden, claiming Congress never required ICE to obtain such warrants. He insists the county must grant ICE unfettered access based on administrative warrants alone. Similar requests have been made against the city of Phoenix, with city attorney Julie Kriegh articulating a robust defense based on the distinction between active obstruction and the non-provision of local resources.

Pima County’s response, articulated by Chief Civil Deputy County Attorney Samuel Brown on behalf of County Attorney Laura Conover, is a masterclass in constitutional and statutory reasoning. Brown rejected Petersen’s arguments outright. He stated the resolution describes “locally directed purposes” and does not seek to regulate the federal government. Most importantly, he pointed out that neither Petersen nor his colleagues could cite “any federal law requiring a county to grant federal agents unfettered access to county property upon a showing of an administrative warrant.” Brown’s conclusion is legally sound: “Under Arizona law, Pima County officials may restrict or limit immigration officials to the extent that federal law itself restricts said officials.” Since federal law does not grant ICE carte blanche with an administrative warrant, the county’s policy is lawful.

Attorney General Kris Mayes, when questioned, indicated a philosophical leaning toward local control but has not issued a formal opinion. The AG’s office has 30 days to review the matter.

Opinion: This Is Not About Immigration—It’s About the Soul of the Republic

The clash in Arizona is a microcosm of a fundamental struggle for the American republic. Framed by partisans as a debate over immigration enforcement, it is, in truth, a profound battle over the limits of government power, the integrity of the Fourth Amendment, and the very structure of our federalist system.

First, let us be unequivocal: the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is not a suggestion. It is a cornerstone of liberty. It states that the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures “shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” This language is deliberate. A “Warrant” is a judicial instrument. It requires the interposition of a neutral magistrate between the citizen and the police officer—a foundational check on arbitrary power. ICE’s reliance on “administrative warrants”—documents crafted and signed by employees of the very agency seeking to conduct the search—obliterates this vital check. To argue, as DHS does, that entire classes of persons are not entitled to this protection is to argue for a two-tiered system of justice and to gut the Fourth Amendment of its universal meaning.

Second, the attack on local control by state legislators is hypocritical and dangerous. For decades, conservatives have rightly championed the principle of subsidiarity—that governance is best handled at the level closest to the people. Yet here, state officials are attempting to use the heavy hand of state law to compel a local government to surrender its property and implicitly endorse federal practices that may violate constitutional norms. This is not principled federalism; it is political coercion. Pima County is not obstructing ICE. It is not harboring fugitives. It is simply saying, “If you wish to use our publicly funded property for your operations, you must demonstrate the basic, judge-approved probable cause that the Constitution demands of any law enforcement action.” To deny a locality this basic right of self-determination over its own property is to strip federalism of its purpose.

Third, the legislators’ argument is logically and legally bankrupt. Warren Petersen claims the resolution violates a state law prohibiting the restriction of federal enforcement. But as Samuel Brown correctly notes, the resolution does not restrict enforcement “to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.” It restricts it to the exact extent permitted by federal law. Federal law does not grant ICE an absolute right to commandeer local property. The Supreme Court has long held that the federal government cannot commandeer state (or local) officials to enforce federal law. Forcing a county to turn over its parking lots as staging areas is a form of unconstitutional commandeering by another name. The city of Phoenix’s argument, echoed by Pima County, draws the legally sound line: there is a world of difference between active obstruction and a simple refusal to affirmatively provide local resources.

The emotional and sensational reality here is that we are watching an attempt to normalize tyranny. When DHS officials blame “deep-state actors” for telling ICE officers they cannot enter homes with administrative warrants, they are not fighting a bureaucracy; they are attacking the rule of law itself. The “deep state” in this context is the enduring American principle that a man’s home is his castle. When state legislators run for higher office (as Petersen is for Attorney General) on a platform of forcing localities to comply with such practices, they are campaigning on the erosion of liberty.

Pima County’s resolution is a largely symbolic but profoundly important act of patriotism. It reaffirms that all government power, no matter its objective, must flow through the channels prescribed by the Constitution. It declares that the Bill of Rights is not suspended at the border or in the context of immigration. The backlash from state legislators is a warning siren. It reveals a disturbing comfort with the dilution of constitutional safeguards and a willingness to sacrifice local autonomy and fundamental freedoms for the illusion of security or political gain.

As a nation committed to democracy and liberty, we must stand with Pima County, Tucson, Phoenix, and every locality that dares to say to the federal government: “You are welcome to enforce the law, but you must do so within the law.” The warrant requirement is not a technicality; it is the bedrock of our freedom. To surrender it, even incrementally and under the guise of immigration enforcement, is to surrender the very soul of the American experiment. The Attorney General should swiftly reject this politically motivated request and affirm the right—indeed, the duty—of local governments to uphold the Constitution on the property they hold in trust for their citizens.