ACLU Opposes Maricopa County’s Attempt to Halt Reform Before Reaching Compliance
PHOENIX – Maricopa County filed a motion yesterday to prematurely end court-ordered reforms in Ortega Melendres v. Sheridan, a class action lawsuit that found MCSO engaged in racially discriminatory policing practices and immigration enforcement in Arizona.
The move follows a court-ordered budget report which found that MCSO improperly attributed tens of millions of spent taxpayer dollars to this case. In addition to the widespread misuse of county funds, MCSO has failed to fully achieve court-ordered reforms, including reducing or eliminating racial disparities in traffic stops and investigating allegations of deputy misconduct.
“Maricopa County’s move to prematurely halt reforms in Melendres ignores the enduring harm Latino residents have experienced at the hands of MCSO,” said Victoria Lopez, executive director for the ACLU of Arizona. “This case is about ensuring meaningful, lasting reform, not settling for temporary fixes. Ending oversight now jeopardizes the progress made thus far and is a distraction from working towards total compliance.”
“The County’s effort to end reforms now is like a doctor choosing to end treatment when a patient’s cancer is only partially cured.” Jenn Rolnick Borchetta, deputy director of the ACLU’s Criminal Law Reform Project. “The people of Maricopa County are entitled to complete reform and protection against a return of the Arpaio days, and the County has not yet delivered.”
Immigrants' Rights
Ortega Melendres, et al. v. Arpaio, et al.
Immigrants' Rights
Ortega Melendres, et al. v. Arpaio, et al.
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2025
Criminal Law Reform
Smart Justice
Aclu Responds To President Trump’s Announcement Rescheduling Marijuana. Explore Press Release.ACLU Responds to President Trump’s Announcement Rescheduling Marijuana
WASHINGTON – President Trump announced today that he will direct executive agencies to reclassify marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under federal law, recognizing that marijuana has accepted medical uses and a lower potential for dependence. Marijuana is currently classified alongside substances such as heroin, and rescheduling would instead place it alongside medications like Tylenol with codeine. The announcement follows years of advocacy directed at many administrations, expanding scientific research, and widespread state-level reforms. “Today’s announcement is a significant step toward aligning federal marijuana policy with science, evidence, and the realities on the ground in states across the country,” said Nina Patel, senior policy counsel at the ACLU. “Congress must now pass the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act and the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act (MORE Act) to ensure justice for the people and communities harmed by the war on drugs. These federal bills would remove federal criminal penalties for marijuana, provide criminal history record clearing, and necessary investments in communities disproportionately targeted for criminalization. The ACLU will continue the fight to end unjust and punitive drug polices for everyone and the creation of a more perfect union for all.” -
Massachusetts Supreme CourtDec 2025
Criminal Law Reform
Commonwealth V. Jose Arias. Explore Case.Commonwealth v. Jose Arias
This case asks whether the stop, search, and arrest of an individual after a traffic stop was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The case arises from a remarkable set of facts: although motivated by a desire to search Mr. Arias’s car for drugs, the police initiated the stop based on a day-old alleged traffic infraction and then arrested Mr. Arias for allegedly neglecting to stop his car immediately when the police initiated the stop. The ACLU joined an amicus brief authored by the ACLU of Massachusetts and the law firm Proskauer Rose, which argues that the police actions in this case were unconstitutional for three reasons. First, pretextual traffic stops, such as this one, violate the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Second, arrests for misdemeanors not involving breaches of the peace also violate the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Third, the statute prohibiting drivers from neglecting to stop is unconstitutionally vague as applied to this case. -
News & CommentaryDec 2025
Criminal Law Reform
Your Questions Answered: How Jury Duty Protects Your Rights. Explore News & Commentary.Your Questions Answered: How Jury Duty Protects Your Rights
Equally important, but less revered than voting; jury service is a powerful tool for holding the government accountable. ACLU experts answer your questions about jury service. -
Michigan Supreme CourtDec 2025
Criminal Law Reform
People Of The State Of Michigan V. Serges. Explore Case.People of the State of Michigan v. Serges
At the core of this case is the question of whether the government can extract and test our DNA without a warrant. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative and Project on Speech, Privacy, and Technology, together with the ACLU of Michigan, filed an amicus brief arguing that, since our DNA contains vast amounts of highly sensitive information about us, DNA testing and extraction constitute a search and therefore require a warrant under both the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, section 11 of the Michigan Constitution. If there were no warrant requirement, as the State urges, police would be able to arrest someone for one offense, even pretextually, and limitlessly test their DNA to investigate unrelated crimes. This would especially impact people from marginalized populations who are most likely to be subject to these police practices.