The Ninth Circuit on Monday kept in place a permanent injunction in a class action alleging the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office in Arizona racially profiled Latinos for traffic stops under the guise of immigration enforcement, saying the district court was within its powers to assign an independent monitor.

A three-judge panel, in a published opinion, affirmed an Arizona federal judge's third supplemental permanent injunction that created a constitutional policing authority and assigned its duties to an independent monitor, after finding Maricopa County Sheriff Russ Skinner in contempt for not complying with a previous injunction requiring the sheriff's office to reform its internal misconduct investigation procedures.

The panel rejected the sheriff's argument that the district court was out of line in granting authority to the monitor to make certain decisions and policies that are binding on the sheriff's office, finding that the lower court's inherent equitable powers — and not Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53 — give it authority to vest the monitor with the CPA's responsibilities.

"With no indication that the court relied on the authority conferred by Rule 53 to appoint the monitor in the first place, the sheriff's remaining arguments fall flat," the panel said.

"Moreover, even if the district court had appointed the monitor initially under Rule 53, the court may subsequently rely on its inherent equitable powers to fashion additional remedies," it added. "Indeed, the district court repeatedly relied on its inherent equitable powers in the subsequent supplemental injunctions."

The litigation stretches back to 2007 when plaintiffs Manuel De Jesus Ortega Melendres, David Rodriguez, Velia Meraz, Manuel Nieto Jr. and Somos America sued then-Sheriff Joe Arpaio over his department's racially motivated traffic stops that were used to verify drivers' immigration status.

The plaintiffs secured a preliminary injunction on the detainments in 2011 and a permanent injunction in May 2013 when U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow found that the sheriff's office lacked the power to stop individuals based on reasonable suspicion alone.

The judge required the county to increase training, improve traffic stop documentation, enhance supervision and evaluation of deputies and improve reporting of misconduct complaints, among other measures.

The Ninth Circuit upheld the injunction in April 2015.

Then in July 2015, the monitor assigned to supervise Arpaio's compliance with the injunction told Judge Snow that the sheriff and his office have "made no appreciable gains" in obeying the order.

Judge Snow in May 2016 found Arpaio in contempt of court, saying he and other top brass engaged in multiple acts of "misconduct, dishonesty and bad faith." The judge later referred Arpaio to the U.S. attorney's office to be prosecuted on criminal contempt charges.

That same year, Judge Snow issued the second supplemental permanent injunction requiring the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office to reform its internal misconduct investigation procedures.

By 2021, Sheriff Paul Penzone was in charge, and in October 2022, Judge Snow found Penzone in civil contempt for not complying with the second order. The judge then issued the third injunction assigning to the monitor the duties of the CPA. Penzone appealed in January 2023, but while the appeal was pending, Skinner became sheriff.

In its opinion Monday, the Ninth Circuit rejected the sheriff's argument that his department's status as a governmental entity prohibits the district court from delegating authority over its operations to the monitor.

"That the district court acted within the general bounds of its inherent powers is consistent with precedent from the [U.S.] Supreme Court, as well as this court," the panel said. "We therefore conclude that, in certain circumstances, the district court, relying on its inherent powers, may vest a non-judicial officer with control over narrow areas of a governmental defendant's operations."

"As the sheriff has confined his Article III challenge to broad propositions regarding the propriety of the monitor's role as CPA and has not challenged the appropriateness of the third order's particular remedies in this specific circumstance, this appeal does not require us to inquire further," it said.

Christine Wee, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Arizona, applauded the Ninth Circuit's order, saying in a statement to Law360 on Monday that the district court's order doesn't give the monitor judicial power, and the monitor's actions have always been under the supervision of the court.

"Despite clear and narrow court orders, the MCSO has now filed five appeals in total, all of which have been rejected by the Court of Appeals," Wee said. "Since the district court's first order in this case in 2013, the monitor's oversight of the MCSO is a crucial step to ensure accountability and protect the civil rights and liberties of Maricopa County residents."

"It is critically important to recall that this litigation and subsequent court orders are a result of a decades-long case in which the MCSO was found to have violated the Constitution by racially profiling and unlawfully detaining Latinx people," Wee added.

Counsel for the sheriff did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

U.S. Circuit Judges J. Clifford Wallace, Susan P. Graber and Marsha S. Berzon sat on the panel for the Ninth Circuit.

The plaintiffs are represented by Amy S. Heath and Stanley Young of Covington & Burling LLP, Natasha Babazadeh, Elizabeth Hecker and Kristen Clarke of the U.S. Department of Justice and Victoria A. Lopez, Christine K. Wee and Cecillia D. Wang of the ACLU Foundation.

The sheriff is represented by Eric M. Fraser, Brandon T. Delgado, Joshua J. Messer, Mary O'Grady and Kristin L. Windtberg of Osborn Maledon PA.

The case is Manuel De Jesus Ortega Melendres et al. v. Russ Skinner, case number 23-15036, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

--Additional reporting by Kevin Penton, Vin Gurrieri and Bonnie Eslinger. Editing by Kristen Becker.

Update: This article has been updated with comment from the ACLU of Arizona.