A federal appeals court has found that Maricopa County is liable for the “racially discriminatory policing policies” of former Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Monday found that the county was not immune from liability for the unlawful traffic-stop policies implemented by Arpaio, which targeted Latinos in attempts to find violations of federal immigration laws.

In a unanimous 14-page opinion written by Judge Paul Watford, the Ninth Circuit upheld a lower court summary judgment ruling that found the county could be held liable for Arpaio's policies under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 34 U.S.C. Section 12601.

The county, represented on appeal by Richard K. Walker of Walker and Peskind in Scottsdale, had argued that sheriffs in Arizona don't act as policymakers for counties when adopting law enforcement policies like the traffic stops at issue in the case.

The county also argued that even if Arpaio was found to be a policymaker for the county, neither Title VI nor Section 12601 renders counties liable for the actions of policymakers. The county also claimed it shouldn't be bound by the findings of private litigation, which determined Arpaio's policies were discriminatory, since it sat the case out and let Arpaio litigate the issues.

But in Monday's decision, Watford found that sheriffs act as final policymakers on law enforcement matters for their respective counties under Arizona law. Since Arpaio was acting as a policymaker for the county, the judge wrote, “those policies were therefore the county's own, and the district court correctly held the county liable.” And though the county did not remain a party to the private litigation that rendered a judgment about Arpaio's tactics, the court found that it had “effectively agreed to be bound by the judgment in that action.”

Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery said the Ninth Circuit failed to accurately apply Arizona constitutional or statutory law.

“The grossly limited review of Arizona law as it pertains to the authority of a board of supervisors over a sheriff, let alone other county officers, betrays the conclusory approach by the Ninth Circuit panel,” Montgomery said. “On a side note, not one federal court has ever thought to certify this question to the Arizona Supreme Court. We will review the decision to assess whether we can entertain any confidence that adding more Ninth Circuit judges to review this case en banc offers any real hope of receiving an informed legal decision.”

Watford was joined in the decision by Ninth Circuit Judges Ronald Gould and Richard C. Tallman.