County Fight Active-Opposition

Pima County AZ — Multi-Level Opposition to Marana ICE Detention Facility

Pima, AZ FIPS 04019

Vote: Pima County 4-1, Tucson and South Tucson also passed opposing resolutions

Current status: Resolutions passed, ordinances restricting ICE use of county property adopted, but federal preemption likely limits enforceability on MTC-owned land. Facility still on track for Nov 2026.

The Fight

When MTC quietly purchased a shuttered state prison in Marana for $15M in July 2025, community activists and local officials launched a multi-front campaign to prevent it from becoming a 513-bed (now potentially 775-bed) ICE detention center. The opposition includes county and city resolutions, new ordinances restricting ICE use of county property, congressional demands for transparency, and community protests at the facility gates.

Why This Fight Matters

This is a case study in what happens when every level of local government opposes a federal detention facility but may lack the legal tools to stop it. Pima County, Tucson, and South Tucson all passed resolutions. The Board of Supervisors adopted enforceable ordinances. Congressional representatives demanded answers. And yet the facility remains on track — because MTC owns the property and the federal government can invoke preemption.

The fight also reveals the capacity creep pattern: the initial 513-bed proposal jumped to 775 within two weeks. Opposition that focuses only on the stated capacity misses how quickly these facilities expand.

Timeline

July 2025: MTC purchases shuttered Marana state prison for $15M
August 2025: AZCIR confirms sale to ICE-affiliated private prison operator
November 17, 2025: AZ Luminaria obtains documents showing few zoning hurdles for ICE conversion
January 21, 2026: Tucson moves to block ICE use of city property
January 30, 2026: Pima County discusses denying county property for ICE operations
February 3, 2026: Pima County Board of Supervisors votes 4-1 to pass resolution opposing the Marana detention center
February 3, 2026: Board advances three items: (1) resolution opposing Marana facility, (2) policy restricting ICE use of county property, (3) resolution opposing federal agents wearing face coverings
February 17, 2026: Board formally adopts policies restricting federal immigration agents from using county property without judicial warrants
February 19, 2026: Reps. Grijalva, Stanton, and Ansari send letter to DHS Secretary Noem and Acting ICE Director Lyons demanding transparency
February 25, 2026: ICE publishes sole-source procurement notice for 2-year contract with MTC
March 10, 2026: ~70 advocates and Rep. Grijalva rally at the former prison gates
March 11, 2026: Tucson, South Tucson resolutions confirmed alongside Pima County opposition
March 12, 2026: Federal procurement order reveals capacity increase to 775 beds
April 7, 2026: Republican state senators file complaint with AG, claiming Pima County “egregiously violated state law” by restricting ICE
April 9, 2026: Arizona Daily Independent reports GOP senators seek to block Pima County’s ICE limits

The Ordinances

The Board of Supervisors adopted two enforceable policies in February 2026:

County property restriction: Bars county property — including buildings, vacant lots, and garages — from being used as staging grounds or operations bases for civil immigration enforcement. Federal agents may only use county property if they present a valid arrest warrant signed by a judicial officer.
Employee non-cooperation: County employees are prohibited from assisting federal law enforcement with civil immigration enforcement activities.
Face covering ban (largely symbolic): Resolution opposing the use of face coverings by federal immigration agents during enforcement operations.

State-Level Backlash

Republican state legislators have pushed back:

Senate bill: Would force sheriffs and local police to help ICE enforce immigration law
AG complaint: GOP senators asked the Arizona Attorney General to punish Pima County for the county property restrictions, calling them a violation of state law
This creates a potential state preemption battle on top of the federal preemption issue

Key Actors

Supervisor Jennifer Allen — Proposed the resolution opposing the Marana facility (her district includes part of Marana)
Rep. Adelita Grijalva (AZ-07) — Led congressional delegation letter, rallied at facility
Rep. Greg Stanton (AZ-04) and Rep. Yassamin Ansari (AZ-03) — Co-signed congressional letter
Senators Mark Kelly and Ruben Gallego — Sent separate correspondence expressing concerns
Pima Resists I.C.E. — Community organizing hub for opposition
Daniela Ugaz — Immigration attorney, leads legal research for Pima Resists, vocal critic of capacity expansion

The Federal Preemption Problem

As the surprise-az-ban demonstrated just miles away in Maricopa County: you cannot ban the federal government from using property it (or its contractor) already owns. The Pima County ordinances restrict ICE use of county property, but MTC owns the Marana facility. The resolutions and congressional letters are political pressure, not legal barriers.

The real leverage points are:

Before the contract is signed — the procurement notice is not yet a final contract
State-level regulation — if Arizona could regulate private prison operators (unlikely under current legislature)
Oversight and accountability — making the facility politically expensive to operate
Capacity challenges — staffing and operational delays

Implications for the Detention Pipeline

Marana is a test of whether coordinated local opposition — from county supervisors through Congress — can slow or stop a facility that has no formal IGSA because it operates on private property under a federal sole-source contract. If it succeeds in opening despite this opposition, it establishes a template: buy the property first, then invoke federal preemption.

marana-ice-detention-center-az — Facility details and MTC track record
pima-county-az-sheriff-nanos-ice-cooperation — Sheriff’s covert cooperation undermines the county’s public opposition stance
surprise-az-ban — Federal preemption lesson from nearby Maricopa County

Sources

This research is published at The RAMM — investigative reporting on the detention pipeline.

Edit Report issue County profile Add a tip about this fight