THE GOVERNMENT KILLED YOUR BUSINESS AND MADE YOUR BANKER HOLD THE KNIFE

The legislation, first introduced by Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) and successfully advanced through the House Judiciary Committee before passing the House of Representatives, would establish common sense standards for federal court-appointed monitors. Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) has now undertaken the effort to carry companion legislation before the United States Senate. Their proposal does not weaken civil-rights enforcement. Instead, it strengthens public confidence by requiring transparency, measurable performance, periodic judicial review, and meaningful off-ramps once constitutional compliance has been achieved.

The effort has also been supported through important constitutional advocacy by the Goldwater Institute, whose Rule 60(b)(5) arguments remind courts of a principle the Supreme Court has recognized for decades: equitable remedies must evolve as circumstances evolve. Federal oversight exists to remedy constitutional violations — not to become a permanent layer of government. 

The Supreme Court has already drawn the Constitutional boundaries

The constitutional foundation for the Monitor Accountability Act has existed for nearly half a century.

In Rizzo v. Goode, the Supreme Court cautioned against federal courts assuming ongoing management of local police agencies absent compelling constitutional necessity. The court recognized that federalism requires respect for local governmental authority.

One year later, Milliken v. Bradley reaffirmed that federal remedies must directly address the constitutional violation itself and may not exceed what is necessary to eliminate that violation. Courts may remedy constitutional injuries — but they may not redesign government beyond the scope of the proven harm.

The court reiterated that principle in Califano v. Yamasaki, holding that injunctive relief must always be narrowly tailored to provide only the relief to which plaintiffs are entitled.

Those decisions laid the constitutional framework that continues today.

In Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, the court recognized that institutional reform decrees are not static. Changed factual or legal circumstances may require modification because equitable remedies cannot ignore reality. In Board of Education v. Dowell, the court explained that federal supervision is not intended to operate in perpetuity. In Freeman v. Pitts, the court authorized federal courts to withdraw oversight incrementally as constitutional compliance is achieved.

Then, in one of the most important institutional reform decisions of the modern era, Horne v. Flores, the Supreme Court warned that institutional reform injunctions raise serious federalism concerns because they displace state and local decision-making. The court instructed lower courts to continually evaluate whether changed circumstances justify returning authority to elected officials.

Finally, Lewis v. Casey reaffirmed perhaps the simplest constitutional rule of all: federal remedies must remain limited to the constitutional injury proven in court.

Taken together, these cases establish a remarkably consistent constitutional doctrine. Federal oversight is lawful. Permanent federal management is not.

Maricopa County has become a national case study

Nowhere is this debate more visible than in Maricopa County, Arizona.

The Melendres litigation arose from proven constitutional violations during a prior administration. Those findings warranted judicial intervention and meaningful reform. Few would dispute that constitutional rights deserve protection.

The question facing taxpayers today is different. Has the remedy remained proportional to its constitutional purpose?

According to publicly reported county expenditures, Maricopa County has spent more than $302 million on compliance efforts associated with the Melendres orders through March 2025. Of that amount, approximately $244.8 million supported internal compliance activities, more than $30.9 million was paid directly toward monitor fees and related costs, $13.4 million toward plaintiffs’ legal fees, and $10.6 million toward defense costs. County reports further acknowledge that these totals do not include millions of dollars in indirect personnel costs and overtime associated with compliance. 

Whether every reported dollar should be classified as a compliance expense has itself become the subject of dispute. That disagreement strengthens, not weakens, the argument for reform. When expenditures reach hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, transparency should not depend upon competing narratives. Congress should require standardized reporting, itemized invoices, independent financial audits, and measurable deliverables so that courts, litigants, taxpayers, and the public evaluate oversight using the same objective information.

The forgotten cost: Public safety

The most significant cost of prolonged federal oversight cannot be measured solely in dollars. It is measured in deputies who are no longer available to answer calls for service.

In 2008, Maricopa County had approximately 800 sworn deputies protecting a population of roughly 3.8 million residents. Even then, many believed staffing levels were insufficient for one of America’s fastest-growing counties.

Today, the county’s population has grown by nearly one million people, approaching 4.9 million residents, while the Sheriff’s Office employs fewer than 600 sworn deputies.

That reality affects every resident. Longer response times. Fewer proactive patrols. Reduced specialty units. Increased mandatory overtime. Greater difficulty recruiting and retaining experienced deputies.

No one should claim that federal oversight alone created these challenges. Labor markets, county budgets, retirement trends, and recruitment all play important roles. But prolonged federal oversight unquestionably consumes substantial financial resources and thousands of administrative hours that otherwise could be devoted to frontline public safety. That opportunity cost deserves consideration whenever courts evaluate whether continued extraordinary oversight remains necessary.

Accountability should never flow in only one direction

Perhaps the most compelling argument for the Monitor Accountability Act is also the simplest.

Every person exercising governmental authority should be accountable for that authority. Sheriffs answer to the voters. County supervisors answer to the taxpayers. Police chiefs answer to elected officials. Legislators answer every election cycle. Federal judges remain bound by appellate review and the Constitution itself.

Court-appointed monitors, however, often wield extraordinary influence over public budgets, disciplinary systems, hiring practices, policy development, and agency operations without any uniform statutory standards governing compensation, performance metrics, periodic review, or public financial accountability.

The Monitor Accountability Act corrects that imbalance. It does not abolish federal monitors. It simply ensures that those exercising extraordinary public authorities operate under equally extraordinary transparency.

A national conversation

Although Maricopa County may be one of the nation’s most visible examples, it is far from the only one.

Federal monitorships have shaped policing, corrections, and municipal governance in cities including Seattle, New Orleans, Chicago, Baltimore, Oakland, Albuquerque, and elsewhere. Many have produced meaningful reforms. Others have continued for years with growing costs and uncertain exit criteria.

Congress has never established a comprehensive national framework governing how long federal monitorships should last, how their costs should be reported, what performance measures should be required, or how courts should evaluate whether continued oversight remains necessary.

The Monitor Accountability Act fills that gap.

It establishes consistent national standards while fully preserving judicial authority to extend oversight whenever current constitutional violations genuinely require it.

Conclusion

The debate surrounding the Monitor Accountability Act should never be reduced to politics.

It is not about relitigating Sheriff Joe Arpaio. It is not about revisiting findings that federal courts have already made. It is not about weakening civil-rights protections. It is about preserving something even more fundamental.

The Constitution requires accountability from every institution exercising governmental power. Federal court monitors should not be the lone exception.

The Framers understood that extraordinary power without meaningful limits eventually undermines public confidence, regardless of how noble its original purpose may have been. That is why our constitutional system insists upon transparency, checks and balances, federalism, and periodic review.

NEED A PERMIT TO PRAY IN YOUR OWN HOUSE? ONE CITY TRIED IT

The Monitor Accountability Act embodies those same principles. It protects constitutional rights. It preserves judicial authority. It safeguards taxpayers. It strengthens public confidence. And it reminds us that the rule of law requires accountability not only from those being supervised but also from those entrusted to supervise them.

For the citizens of Maricopa County and communities across America, the United States Senate should pass the Monitor Accountability Act.

Christopher Clark is President of Deputies Law Enforcement Association.