Major Law Enforcement Organizations Announce Support for Biggs’s Monitor Accountability Act

WASHINGTON, D.C. – With the Monitor Accountability Act set to come to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives this week, Congressman Andy Biggs (AZ-05) shared several letters of support for his legislation from law enforcement organizations:

“Court-appointed monitors play an important role in ensuring compliance with federal court orders, and we support efforts to ensure that these monitorships are structured, transparent, and focused on measurable progress. We are encouraged by provisions that increase public accountability, including transparency in monitor activities and costs, public input, and clearer expectations around structure and duration.”– Navajo County Sheriff David Clouse, President of the Arizona Sheriffs’ Association

“Recent data, including PORAC’s March 2026 research brief, Evaluating Police Consent Decrees: From Compliance to Results, which examined decades of federal monitorships, shows that federal monitorships divert resources from communities, cost over $10 million per year on average, and often last more than a decade. While imposing these steep burdens on communities, the process operates behind closed doors, obstructs departments’ good-faith efforts to achieve compliance, and threatens public safety. In fact, monitors have a financial disincentive to find agencies in compliance and have repeatedly moved the goal posts in some cases. This legislation advances the targeted, transparent, and outcome-driven reforms we have long advocated.”– Brian R. Marvel, President of the Peace Officers Research Association of California

“This legislation introduces necessary accountability by establishing clear standards, enhanced oversight, and greater public visibility into a process that has too often lacked meaningful checks and balances. Notably, the language in this bill reflects principles outlined in a 2021 memorandum issued by then–Attorney General Merrick Garland under the administration of former President Joe Biden, underscoring a bipartisan foundation for these reforms.”– Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri, President of the Major County Sheriffs of America

“The current court monitor system exercises substantial authority over local law enforcement agencies while operating with limited oversight and transparency. Given the significant financial and operational impact monitors can have on departments and the communities they serve, greater accountability within this process is both appropriate and necessary. H.R. 8365 provides important reforms by creating clearer standards for monitor appointments, compensation, reporting requirements, and overall oversight.”– Darrell Kriplean, President of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association

“By placing reasonable limits on fees, terms, and appointments, while requiring public reporting and opportunities for input, this bill helps ensure that monitorships remain focused, efficient, and results-driven. These reforms will help prevent unnecessarily prolonged and costly consent decrees and court orders that place a heavy burden on local agencies and the taxpayers who fund them. At the same time, the legislation preserves the core purpose of monitoring—achieving constitutional and sustainable compliance.” – Joe Clure, Executive Director of the Arizona Police Association

If enacted into law, the Monitor Accountability Act would require federal district courts to follow common-sense rules when appointing monitors to oversee state or local government agencies. This legislation includes the following terms:

• Term limits: Monitors may serve no more than five years and cannot be reappointed under the same court order, preventing long‑term control by any single individual.
   
• No revolving door: Successive monitors cannot come from the same law firm or employer, ensuring independence.
   
• Fee caps & transparency: Monitor compensation is capped and courts encouraged to require pro bono or reduced-cost work to control costs and ensure transparency.
   
• Public input: Courts must announce the proposed monitor and allow public comment before appointment.
   
• Off-ramp for states / localities: A monitorship may only be extended if the state or locality has not achieved substantial and sustained compliance, preventing open‑ended oversight.
   
• Judicial transfer: After six years, the case must be reassigned to a different judge to avoid prolonged control by a single court.
   
• Retroactive fix: Immediately covers monitorships older than six years, including Maricopa County, triggering required replacement of both monitor and judge.

Read the letter from the Arizona Sheriffs’ Association here.

Read the letter from the Peace Officers Research Association of California here.

Read the letter from the Major County Sheriffs of America here.

Read the letter from the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association here.

Read the letter from the Arizona Police Association here.