The Arizona Court of Appeals has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit challenging the Secure the Border Act, a comprehensive border security law passed by voters in 2024. This ruling affects organizations and individuals who argued the law violates the Arizona Constitution. The court's decision confirms the legality of the law and its provisions aimed at regulating immigration enforcement in the state.
The case, titled Living United for Change in Arizona et al. v. State of Arizona, was filed in response to Proposition 314, which introduced several measures to enhance border security. The plaintiffs, including advocacy groups and individual residents, claimed the Act contravenes the state constitution in multiple ways, including violating the Revenue Source Rule and unlawfully delegating legislative power to Texas. The court's ruling affirms the lower court's dismissal of the case, stating that the plaintiffs lack standing for some claims and that the remaining claims fail on their merits.
The plaintiffs in this case include Living United for Change in Arizona and the Arizona Center for Empowerment, along with individual plaintiffs Martin Hernandez and Arnold Montiel Jr. They filed their lawsuit in April 2025, arguing that the Secure the Border Act imposes unconstitutional requirements on state and local agencies. The case was heard by the Arizona Court of Appeals, with Vice Chief Judge David D. Weinzweig delivering the opinion, joined by Presiding Judge D. Steven Williams and Judge Anni Hill Foster.
The dispute centers around three main provisions of the Secure the Border Act. First, the Act mandates that state and local agencies use the federal Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program to verify the immigration status of public-benefit applicants. Second, it establishes a state system to regulate illegal entry of noncitizens into Arizona, which includes provisions for probable cause for arrest and transport of individuals convicted of illegal entry. Lastly, the Act includes a Trigger Provision that prevents enforcement of the illegal entry system until a similar law in Texas has been in effect for 60 days.
The lower court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, stating that their claims were either unripe or lacked sufficient standing. The court found that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a direct injury related to the provisions they challenged. For instance, the court ruled that the SAVE Requirement does not require state funding, as it only directs agencies to verify eligibility through a federal program, which currently incurs no cost. Additionally, the court noted that the Transport and Custody Provisions do not mandate state expenditure, as they allow local agencies to handle the transport of individuals.
In the ruling, Vice Chief Judge Weinzweig stated, "We affirm because Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue some of their claims and the rest fail on the merits." The court emphasized that the Revenue Source Rule applies only when a measure requires a mandatory expenditure of state revenues, which the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate in this case.
The court also addressed the plaintiffs' claims regarding the Probable Cause Provision, stating that it does not infringe upon judicial authority. The ruling clarified that the provision requires law enforcement to establish probable cause, which aligns with existing legal standards under the Fourth Amendment. The court found that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claims of injury related to this provision.
The impact of this ruling is significant for Arizona and its approach to immigration enforcement. The court's decision reinforces the legality of the Secure the Border Act and its provisions, allowing state and local agencies to implement the law as intended. This ruling may set a precedent for future challenges to similar legislation, as it underscores the importance of demonstrating standing and the merits of claims in constitutional challenges.
Going forward, the ruling may influence how border security measures are enacted and enforced in Arizona. While the plaintiffs have the option to appeal the decision, it remains to be seen whether they will pursue further legal action. The court's affirmation of the lower court's ruling indicates a strong stance on the legality of the Secure the Border Act and the state's authority to regulate immigration enforcement.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases pending or further potential appeals. However, the outcome of this case could have lasting implications for immigration policy in Arizona and potentially influence similar legislative efforts in other states.