Highlights
- The Arizona Court of Appeals unanimously upheld Proposition 314, the 2024 voter-approved law allowing police to arrest border crossers outside ports of entry.
- Judge David Weinzweig ruled that LUCHA lacked standing to sue because its challenge rested on potential future harms, not existing facts.
- A parallel federal challenge by the Florence Immigrant Rights and Refugee Project was dismissed in July on similar grounds.
- LUCHA executive director Alejandra Gomez said no decision has been made on whether to seek Arizona Supreme Court review.
A unanimous Arizona Court of Appeals panel upheld Proposition 314 on Thursday, rejecting a 2025 lawsuit by Living United for Change in Arizona that sought to void the 2024 voter-approved measure allowing police to arrest people who cross the border outside a port of entry and charge them with a state crime.
Judge David Weinzweig, writing for the three-judge panel, ruled that LUCHA lacks standing to sue in the first place, making the organization's substantive constitutional arguments irrelevant. Weinzweig wrote that declaratory relief must be based on an existing set of facts, not those which may or may not arise in the future, a standard LUCHA's challenge failed to meet.
LUCHA had argued that Prop. 314's enforcement provisions are more likely to affect its members who share the race, ethnicity, or national origin of immigrants entering Arizona from the southern border, making them more vulnerable to misapplication than the general public. Weinzweig rejected that theory, holding that the possibility of future misapplication against people sharing the same ethnic background as LUCHA members does not confer standing to seek a court halt on enforcement.
Why did the court reject the funding challenge?
LUCHA also argued that Prop. 314 violates the Arizona Constitution's requirement that any ballot measure mandating new state spending must identify a new revenue source. The challengers pointed to the law's requirement that the state Department of Corrections transport voluntary deportees to the border. Weinzweig ruled that the mandatory transport obligation falls on local law enforcement agencies, not the state, and that state costs arise only when a local agency lacks holding capacity. He called that arrangement a contingency, not a mandate, and rejected the funding challenge.
The Thursday ruling tracks a July decision by U.S. District Court Judge Michael Liburdi, who dismissed a separate challenge to Prop. 314 brought by the Florence Immigrant Rights and Refugee Project after finding the organization had failed to show anyone had actually been affected by the law.
Alejandra Gomez, LUCHA's executive director, said the organization is appalled that the Court of Appeals allowed Prop. 314 to stand. She said the ruling arrives as the Trump administration continues expanding the reach of immigration enforcement and called the measure a vehicle to target immigrant communities and force taxpayers to fund what she described as a reckless law with no clear way to pay for it. Gomez said no decision has been made on whether to seek Arizona Supreme Court review.
KJZZ and the Arizona Mirror also reported the ruling Thursday.
Sources
Every factual claim in this article traces to one of the sources below. See how we work for the editorial process.
- azcapitoltimes.com retrieved 11/09/2026 03:39
Authored by The Scottsdale Signal. Drafted by AI from primary-source material under our beat-specific editorial guides; reviewed by humans before publish under our five-gate process. Sources retrieved at 11/09/2026 03:39. Every claim traces to a source.
