One example is Democratic state senator Analise Ortiz of Arizona, who has come under fire. She generated a social media post to warn her immigrant community about unexpected ICE or immigration enforcement action close to a local elementary school. The Instagram post falsely claimed that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents were operating around the area of Southwest Elementary School. Following the outcry, Ortiz asked her constituents to avoid the area when the operation was purportedly happening. This event has sparked an unprecedented political firestorm since, with Republican senators demanding that she be expelled from the upper chamber.
The entire uproar started when Ortiz reposted a message from a local community group. She promised that she would be the first to warn her neighborhood if ICE ever showed up. If the United States of America is going to remain a free and fair democracy,” she continued, “it requires that citizens stand up to unconstitutional acts.” Ortiz added that she was “not fucking scared of you nor Trump’s masked goons,” illustrating her defiance against perceived intimidation tactics.
These Republican senators– Jake Hoffman and Warren Petersen –have been consistently vocal in condemning Ortiz’s moves. Hoffman filed a formal ethics complaint against her. He has been calling for her to be expelled from the Senate, removed from all committees, and have her office and legislative support stripped. He claimed by issuing public alerts of ICE operations, Ortiz put law enforcement and everyday Americans at risk.
“By publicly posting alerts about federal law enforcement activity, she actively tipped off individuals being pursued by ICE, jeopardizing the safety of officers and law-abiding citizens,” – Jake Hoffman
Petersen has taken the matter further by requesting a federal investigation into Ortiz’s reshare, claiming that she may have violated laws that prevent “assaulting, resisting or impeding certain officers or employees.” This perverse legal angle makes it almost immeasurably more difficult. Although primarily intended as an obscure legal device, the bill raises important questions about law enforcement’s intersection with free speech.
Ortiz’s history of past behavior has received scrutiny. In 2024, she faced a full-blown ethics investigation. This came on the heels of her fiery condemnation of Republican peers during an emergency abortion-related vote, cursing them with a “shame” yelled from the Senate chamber. Despite her being determined to have violated house rules, no formal punishment was ever delivered.
The year ethics committee has yet to finalize its operating rules for the year. Once that’s decided, it can focus on Hoffman’s claim of retaliation against Ortiz. Such an expulsion would require a two-thirds vote from the chamber. With today’s political dynamics, that doesn’t seem like a likely outcome.
Arizona’s Democratic attorney general, Kris Mayes, has been unapologetic in defending Ortiz to the end. Together with free speech scholars, she makes the case that Ortiz’s activity is, in fact, protected political speech by the First Amendment. Mayes contended that Ortiz’s post is speech that, on its face, is constitutionally protected. He characterized the ethics complaint as a direct effort to punish dissent.
“This ethics complaint is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to intimidate and silence a democratically elected legislator. Warren Petersen and Jake Hoffman should be ashamed of themselves for weaponizing the ethics process just because they disagree with Senator Ortiz politically,” – Kris Mayes
Ortiz has remained resolute in her stance. She made a strong call for courage in speaking out against what she sees as the rising tide of authoritarianism. She voiced alarm over the unfortunate precedent set by clandestine ICE activities. She underscored the need for raising public awareness around these actions.
“The fact they are trying to escalate it and are blatantly lying about my actions proves that this is really about authoritarianism and wanting to have a system where masked men carry out police operations in secret,” – Analise Ortiz
The situation has received a lot of attention, not just statewide, but across the nation. Ortiz enjoys the strong support of advocacy groups and civil rights organizations. They contend that local and state public officials need to be able to share information on the consequences of immigration enforcement without having to worry about retaliation.
Whether this story goes on to become a miracle or a tragedy, it is emblematic of the current showdown between immigration policy and law enforcement in the United States. The struggle to protect both public safety and Americans’ individual rights remains one of the most polarizing issues in U.S. politics today.