PHOENIX — The Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Arizona filed a federal lawsuit July 10 challenging Section 5 of Arizona’s Proposition 314, arguing the measure violates the U.S. Constitution by allowing the state to assume authority over immigration enforcement that belongs to the federal government.
The organizations are challenging Section 5 of Proposition 314, a ballot measure approved by Arizona voters in November 2024 and enacted into law last year.
According to the lawsuit, the plaintiffs argue Section 5 would allow state and local authorities to enforce immigration laws in ways that conflict with the federal government’s exclusive authority over immigration. They contend the measure creates a state-based immigration enforcement system in an area that has historically been administered by federal agencies.
The lawsuit, Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project v. Mayes, seeks a preliminary injunction blocking Section 5 from taking effect. If granted, the injunction would prevent enforcement of the provision until the court issues a final ruling.
According to the complaint, Section 5 would make it a state crime for certain noncitizens to enter or remain in Arizona under circumstances defined by the law.
The plaintiffs argue the measure would authorize state courts to issue removal-related orders that intrude on the federal government’s exclusive authority over immigration enforcement. They contend Arizona lacks the constitutional authority to establish its own immigration removal system.
Arizona voters approved Proposition 314 in the November 2024 general election, according to Ballotpedia. Although Section 5 has been delayed because of ongoing legal challenges involving state immigration laws, other portions of the initiative have already taken effect. If the court does not intervene, the challenged provision could become effective.
According to the lawsuit, the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, the ACLU and the ACLU of Arizona argue that Section 5 violates both federal immigration law and the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which provides that federal law supersedes conflicting state laws. They contend the measure could result in people being detained or arrested under a state immigration system that differs from and potentially conflicts with federal immigration procedures.
The plaintiffs’ attorneys also argue the law could create confusion for immigrants, legal aid organizations and law enforcement agencies by requiring them to navigate both the existing federal immigration system and a new state immigration process.
They argue immigration enforcement requires a single national framework rather than separate systems established by individual states.
The Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, one of the organizations challenging Section 5, provides legal representation, education and advocacy for immigrants in Arizona.
The ACLU also argues state courts are not equipped to resolve many of the complex legal issues that arise in immigration proceedings.
According to the ACLU, immigration cases frequently involve asylum claims, international treaties and questions of federal immigration law that are typically handled by federal immigration courts. The organization argues requiring state courts to handle those matters could result in inconsistent rulings and legal uncertainty.
Supporters of Proposition 314 argue the measure is intended to strengthen federal immigration enforcement in border states and provide Arizona with additional tools to address unlawful immigration when federal authorities are unable to do so.
Arizona voters approved the measure during the 2024 statewide general election, reflecting public support for expanded state immigration enforcement. However, whether Section 5 is constitutional will ultimately be decided by the federal courts.
The plaintiffs also rely on prior court decisions involving state immigration enforcement. They cite the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in Arizona v. United States, which limited states’ authority to enact immigration laws by reaffirming the federal government’s primary authority over immigration policy. They argue that decision supports their challenge to Proposition 314.
The federal court will now determine whether Section 5 of Proposition 314 may take effect while the lawsuit proceeds. If the judge grants the requested preliminary injunction, enforcement of the challenged provision would be suspended until the court reaches a final decision on its constitutionality.
If the injunction is denied, the law could take effect while the litigation continues and potentially proceeds through the federal appellate courts, according to the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project.
The lawsuit is one of the latest legal challenges to state immigration enforcement laws and highlights the continuing dispute over the division of authority between state and federal governments in immigration policy.
The plaintiffs argue Proposition 314 exceeds Arizona’s constitutional authority. The federal courts will ultimately decide whether Section 5 complies with the U.S. Constitution.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
