A federal judge has denied attempts to end oversight of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO), citing ongoing racial disparities in traffic stops involving Latino drivers and a lack of proof that reforms would stay in place without continued monitoring. In a detailed 72-page ruling released on September 10, U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow emphasized that Sheriff Jerry Sheridan, who has led the department for over a decade, has played a central role in racial profiling since the case began. Sheridan previously worked under former Sheriff Joe Arpaio, whose tenure led to a federal lawsuit over racial profiling practices. Judge Snow criticized Sheridan for abusing his authority to block and manipulate internal investigations into misconduct by deputies and senior staff. He argued that this undermined efforts to hold officers accountable and address constitutional violations against the plaintiffs—Latino residents who were subjected to biased policing. Despite the sheriff's office declining to comment on Snow’s findings, Sheridan has publicly disagreed, saying the judge misunderstood his role. The federal oversight of MCSO, Arizona’s largest sheriff’s office, began in 2007 after a class action lawsuit found that the department under Arpaio violated the constitutional rights of Latino residents. The lawsuit, known as Melendres v. Arpaio, was named after Manuel de Jesus Melendres Ortega, a legal resident arrested during one of Arpaio’s controversial immigration sweeps. Over the years, the court has required the sheriff’s office to track all traffic stops, hire additional investigators, and appoint a monitor to ensure compliance with reforms. Despite these efforts, Judge Snow said that disparities in how Latino drivers are treated by law enforcement persist. An analysis of traffic stop data by a University of California, Berkeley professor found that Hispanic drivers are 40% more likely to be arrested, 30% more likely to be stopped for longer, and 2.5 times more likely to be searched than white drivers. The judge said the sheriff’s office must demonstrate that it has fully addressed these issues for three consecutive years before oversight could be removed. Maricopa County leaders have long argued that the oversight is costly and unnecessary, with some estimating the cost has exceeded $200 million. However, a 2025 audit found that nearly 72% of the sheriff’s spending was misallocated, with only $63 million properly tied to the settlement. While some county officials, including Republican leaders, expressed disappointment with the judge’s ruling, others, like Democrat Steve Gallardo, supported continued oversight to ensure reforms are fully implemented. The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, which originally filed the lawsuit, welcomed the decision, stating that ending oversight too soon could harm Latino residents. The judge’s ruling highlights that the sheriff’s office has not yet proven it can sustain reforms without federal monitoring, and that systemic issues in policing go beyond the actions of any one leader.