The American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of Arizona filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project challenging Section 5 of Proposition 314, a previously deferred provision that would unconstitutionally usurp federal immigration enforcement power by making it a state crime for some immigrants to enter or remain in Arizona. Without court intervention, local and state law enforcement agencies may move to enforce Section 5 as early as July 14. The case is now pending before U.S. District Court Judge Michael Liburdi in Phoenix.
What changed
The lawsuit challenges Section 5 of Proposition 314, a provision that would make it a state crime for some immigrants to enter or remain in Arizona. The provision would allow local and state law enforcement to question, arrest and detain people suspected of entering the country unlawfully.
Section 5 had been on hold due to litigation against similar laws in other states, but it is now poised to take effect. The provision’s enforcement was contingent on a similar Texas law (Senate Bill 4) remaining in effect for 60 days. On May 14 the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the injunction that had barred the Texas law from taking effect. This triggered the 60-day clock for Arizona, meaning Section 5 is set to activate imminently.
The groups are asking the court to immediately block the provision, citing a violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which clearly establishes that immigration is a federal responsibility. The groups are asking for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent the harm Section 5 would cause to immigrant, Latino and communities of color across the state.
Why it matters
Courts across the country have repeatedly reaffirmed that immigration enforcement is a power that belongs exclusively to the federal government — not the states. If Section 5 takes effect, it creates parallel state-level criminal liability for undocumented entry—a fundamental shift in the enforcement landscape that practitioners and clients must navigate carefully.
The ACLU contends that Proposition 314 runs afoul of laws that grant Congress and federal immigration officials the exclusive right to determine how to deal with those in the country illegally. The result of this state intervention is that some border crossers will not have the opportunity to take advantage of defenses available to them under federal law, like seeking asylum.
The timing is critical: the lawsuit is asking for emergency injunctive relief to prevent enforcement before the law takes effect on or after July 14, 2026. If the court denies the injunction, Section 5 becomes enforceable immediately, and Arizona police will have state-law arrest authority for unlawful entry.
Way forward
-
Monitor the district court docket. The case is styled Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project V. Mayes. Check the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (Judge Liburdi’s court) for ruling on the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction motion. Any order is likely to come within days.
-
Adjust client counseling pending the outcome. Until the court rules, advise clients and referral partners that state-level criminal exposure for unlawful entry may be imminent in Arizona. If Section 5 takes effect, asylum applicants and others may face additional state charges that complicate federal removal defense strategy.
-
Prepare for dual-track defense. If Section 5 is enforceable, coordinate federal immigration defense with Arizona state criminal defense for any client arrested under the new state provision.
-
Track appellate developments. Even if the district court denies the preliminary injunction, watch for emergency appeals to the Ninth Circuit or Supreme Court, which could stay enforcement pending further litigation.
Disclaimer
This is not legal advice. We are a content platform, not a law firm. Immigration law is complex and fact-specific; always consult a licensed immigration attorney or accredited representative and verify against the primary source linked above. Agency policy and court rulings change without notice. This article reflects the lawsuit as filed on July 13, 2026, and does not predict the outcome of the case.