PHOENIX — Arizona’s new voter-approved law allowing the state’s police more immigration enforcement authority remains in effect after a federal judge ruled last week that no one has shown they have been harmed by the measure.

During a two-hour hearing on Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Michael Liburdi questioned how the state can enforce Proposition 314 — including a provision allowing state judges to deport migrants — given that immigration enforcement is the sole purview of the federal government.

But Liburdi said he cannot consider those constitutional questions unless someone with legal standing brings the challenge. So far, he said, no one has since the law took effect on July 14.

Friday’s order is not the last word. Liburdi will give the Florence Immigrant Rights and Refugee Project, which is challenging the statute, another chance to convince him that the law is damaging its work in representing migrants and is an illegal intrusion into federal immigration laws.

But the Florence Project, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, has an uphill fight if it hopes to void what Liburdi said voters have said they want.

Republican lawmakers said they put Proposition 314 on the 2024 ballot amid widespread reports, backed by videos, that the Biden administration was not sealing gaps in the border. Instead, federal policy at the time required authorities to take asylum claim information from those who crossed and then release them with a date to appear in court.

The measure, approved by a 2-1 margin, allows state and local police to arrest those who enter at other than a port of entry. It requires an officer to witness the illegal crossing, have video evidence, or some other undefined “constitutionally sufficient indicia of probable cause.” 

Breaking the law is considered a Class 1 misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail.

But the law is designed not to incarcerate but to deport: A judge can dismiss charges against anyone accused of violating the law if the person agrees to leave the country.

ACLU attorney Kathryn Huddleston argued that is an illegal intrusion on federal law. But Liburdi said that argument is irrelevant — at least for now.

He said a legal bid to overturn a lawfully enacted state law can be brought only by someone who can show imminent and irreparable harm. And the judge said that, to this point, there is no evidence that anyone actually has been arrested or deported.

Huddleston tried arguing that the Florence Project is affected because the law will require staffers to spend more time contending with state and federal immigration laws in representing its clients. That will include more time spent driving to different courthouses. 

Liburdi was unimpressed by that argument.

“You had an administration that let the border remain wide open for four years,” Liburdi said. “Unaccompanied minors, potential terrorists, people who were not vetted flooded across the border … and you’re arguing the people of the state of Arizona can’t react to that because a Florence Immigration Project staff attorney might have to put an extra tank of gas in their car to visit a client?”

This isn’t Arizona’s first attempt to insert itself into such matters.

In 2010, lawmakers approved SB 1070, which contained multiple provisions designed to give state and local authorities the power to detain those suspected of being here illegally. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately struck down its key provisions.