On September 10, U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow issued a 72-page opinion refusing a request to terminate the long-standing federal oversight of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. The request—filed by the county in December and later joined by the sheriff’s office—argued that the department had corrected the constitutional violations that triggered the original court-ordered reforms more than a decade ago. Judge Snow concluded that the evidence of persistent racial disparity in traffic stops involving Latino motorists was insufficient to certify lasting compliance, and therefore the monitor must remain.
Judge Snow’s analysis and Sheriff Jerry Sheridan’s conduct
The opinion repeatedly references Sheriff Jerry Sheridan emphasizing his involvement in the case since he served as Chief Deputy under former Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Snow wrote that Sheridan “abused his authority over internal affairs by obstructing and manipulating misconduct investigations,” a pattern the judge observed in more than thirty separate citations. Sheridan, who took office in January 2025, rejected the ruling, telling reporters he was “very truthful” and that the judge “got that wrong about me.” The court, however, found that Sheridan’s historical role and recent resistance to the court-ordered reforms undermined confidence that the department could sustain change without external supervision.
Statistical proof of ongoing bias
Central to the judge’s decision were traffic-stop statistics compiled by the sheriff’s office and analyzed by a University of California, Berkeley computer-science professor on behalf of the plaintiffs. The study indicated that Hispanic drivers are 40% more likely to be arrested than white drivers, endure stops that last 30% longer and face searches at a rate 2.5 times higher than their white counterparts. Snow stressed that the defendants had failed to offer a satisfactory explanation for these gaps, noting that “those disparities remain.” Under the settlement, the department must demonstrate full compliance for three continuous years before the monitor can be dismissed.
County leaders, cost arguments, and audit findings
Republican officials on the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors have repeatedly highlighted the financial burden of the monitorship, claiming it costs taxpayers “hundreds of millions of dollars.” In a joint statement, Chair Kate Brophy McGee and Vice Chair Debbie Lesko called the oversight an “unelected and unaccountable” bureaucracy that diverts resources from critical services. Their criticism follows an audit ordered by the court that revealed roughly 72% of the sheriff’s office expenditures were misattributed, with only $63 million properly charged to the settlement. Despite these concerns, the monitor’s annual reviews continued to document racial disparities, undermining the supervisors’ claim that the reforms were complete.
Historical backdrop and the path forward
The federal monitorship traces back to a 2007 class-action lawsuit—originally titled Melendres v. Arpaio—which found the department’s sweeping traffic operations violated the constitutional rights of Latino residents. At that time, the U.S. Census estimated 1.5 million Latino or Hispanic people lived in Maricopa County, all protected by the settlement. In 2013, Judge Snow ordered comprehensive documentation of every traffic stop and the addition of investigators to probe deputy misconduct, appointing a court-appointed monitor to enforce compliance. A 2025 evaluation reported that while the office met more than 90% of technical requirements, it fell short on eliminating bias in stops and on promptly investigating alleged deputy misconduct. The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona welcomed Snow’s latest decision, stating that any relaxation of oversight would have “devastating impact” on Latino residents. Until the department can sustain unbiased practices for the required three-year period, the federal monitor will remain a fixture of Maricopa County policing.
