Omar Bennett
Former US President Donald Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio, the former sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, in 2017. Arpaio was convicted of criminal contempt for violating a judicial order that barred his department from detaining individuals based on their race or Latino ancestry. Trump's pardon of Arpaio has been widely criticized as an abuse of power and a violation of the Constitution. Legal experts argue that the pardon undermines respect for the rule of law and sends a message that government officials can disregard the Constitution without consequences. This case raises questions about the scope of presidential pardon power and its potential to subvert the Constitution. While Trump likely had the authority to pardon Arpaio, the decision has sparked concerns about the integrity of the US legal system and the potential for future violations of constitutional rights.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Date of pardon | 25 August 2017 |
| Person pardoned | Joe Arpaio |
| Crime pardoned | Criminal contempt of court, a misdemeanour |
| Crime description | Racial profiling of Latinos |
| Legality of pardon | Legal but described as "troubling and unusual" by some experts |
| Public opinion | Mixed reviews ranging from praise to condemnation |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Joe Arpaio's criminal contempt of court
Joe Arpaio, the former six-term sheriff from metro Phoenix, was found guilty of criminal contempt of court in July 2017. The ruling, made by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton, stated that Arpaio's words demonstrated a "flagrant disregard" for a federal court injunction that halted his signature immigration round-ups. Arpaio's hard-line immigration platform was popular with conservatives, and he faced re-election in 2012.
The case against Arpaio was built on his own words, with his quotes cited more than 20 times in the federal judge's ruling. Evidence showed that Arpaio knew of the order and its meaning regarding the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office's (MCSO) policy of detaining individuals without state charges for turnover to ICE for civil immigration violations. Prosecutors from the Justice Department's Public Integrity section demonstrated how Arpaio's deputies illegally detained 171 individuals after a December 2011 injunction. They showcase news releases, media clips, and old depositions to prove that Arpaio was more interested in his political reputation than following a judge's orders.
Arpaio's defense attorneys argued that the order from Judge Snow was open to interpretation and that for an individual to be found in criminal contempt, the judge's order must be "clear and definite." They also shifted blame to Tim Casey, Arpaio's former defense attorney. However, Judge Bolton's ruling stated that "willful ignorance of a court order which a person has knowledge of and a duty to fulfill does not excuse non-compliance therewith."
Arpaio was pardoned by President Donald Trump on August 25, 2017, removing his possible punishments. However, Arpaio's conviction remains on his record, and he has expressed his desire to have it erased so that it cannot be raised against him in future court cases. His attempts to appeal the ruling have been rejected, with special prosecutor Christopher Caldwell arguing that there are no legal consequences from the now-pardoned conviction and that Judge Bolton did not abuse her judicial powers.
The Constitution's Article II, Section 2: Judicial Nominations Explained
You may want to see also
Trump's willingness to pardon Arpaio
Trump's decision to pardon Arpaio was not without precedent. The precedent for a presidential pardon in criminal contempt cases stretches back centuries, according to Frank Bowman, an emeritus professor of criminal and constitutional law. However, this particular pardon was still considered troubling and unusual by many law professors and political scientists, with some experts on authoritarianism characterizing it as illiberal and undermining the rule of law.
The pardon covered Arpaio's conviction and any other offenses that might arise in connection with the case of Melendres v. Arpaio, where Arpaio's office was found to be racial profiling Latinos. Trump's decision to pardon Arpaio was influenced by the belief that Arpaio had been "railroaded" by the Justice Department under former President Obama, a sentiment shared by many Republicans in Arizona who pushed for the pardon. Trump had also previously expressed his support for Arpaio, stating that he thought Arpaio would be "just fine" and indicating his willingness to pardon him.
While the pardon may have been unusual, legal experts confirmed that it was within Trump's power to grant it. The pardon power, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, is considered "unlimited" and extends only to federal crimes. As a result, Trump's pardon of Arpaio technically only covered the contempt of court charge and not the racial profiling for which he was convicted.
The Constitution and the Two-Party System
You may want to see also
The implications of the pardon
The implications of Trump's pardon of former Maricopa County, Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio are complex and far-reaching. Firstly, the pardon itself is controversial due to the nature of Arpaio's conviction, which involved racial profiling and contempt of court. By pardoning Arpaio, Trump effectively nullified the consequences of his actions, which many viewed as an endorsement of Arpaio's discriminatory practices. This sent a message that racial profiling and defiance of court orders may be tolerated, particularly in the context of immigration enforcement.
Secondly, the pardon raised concerns about the integrity of the justice system. Arpaio was found guilty of contempt of court for disregarding a court order to halt his discriminatory practices. Trump's pardon called into question the authority of the courts and the rule of law. It suggested that individuals in positions of power could flout court orders without facing repercussions, undermining the principle of equal justice under the law.
Thirdly, the pardon highlighted the issue of executive overreach. While the U.S. President does have the power to grant pardons, Trump's use of this power in Arpaio's case was seen as an abuse of discretion. Legal experts criticized Trump for bypassing the established review process and granting clemency to individuals with personal or political connections. This pattern of granting clemency to well-connected offenders raised questions about the fairness and transparency of the pardon process under the Trump administration.
Finally, the pardon had a significant impact on Arpaio's public image and political career. Despite being convicted and pardoned, Arpaio has continued to enjoy support from his backers, who refer to him as "America's Toughest Sheriff". He has returned to the spotlight, making public appearances and receiving awards from conservative groups. Arpaio's pardon and subsequent rehabilitation have emboldened him to remain politically active, potentially influencing future elections and policy decisions.
In conclusion, the implications of Trump's pardon of Joe Arpaio are significant. It has sparked debates about racial profiling, the integrity of the justice system, executive overreach, and the potential for pardons to be used as a tool to circumvent accountability. The pardon's broader consequences for the rule of law and democratic values in the United States continue to be assessed and discussed.
Exploring the USS Constitution: A Visitor's Guide
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The reaction to the pardon
The pardon of Joe Arpaio by President Donald Trump received mixed reviews. While some praised the pardon, crediting Arpaio with helping to reduce crime over a long career, others denounced it as a slap in the face for those affected by his racially motivated policies.
The pardon was described by many as troubling and unusual, with several experts on authoritarianism characterising it as illiberal and undermining the rule of law. Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman stated that the pardon "would express presidential contempt for the Constitution". The New York Times reported that legal experts found the fact that Trump used his constitutional power to block a federal judge's effort to enforce the Constitution to be the "most troubling aspect of the pardon".
U.S. District Judge Susan R. Bolton, who handed down the guilty verdict, did not vacate Arpaio's conviction, ruling that while the pardon relieved Arpaio of punishment, it did not change the facts of his crime. Bolton wrote: "The power to pardon is an executive prerogative of mercy, not of judicial record-keeping".
The pardon was also criticised on social media, with many activists denouncing it as a slap in the face for those affected by Arpaio's policies. Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton, for instance, considered the pardon a slap in the face to Maricopa County.
Energy in the Executive: Powering Performance and Productivity
You may want to see also
The legality of the pardon
The U.S. Constitution grants the President the "Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." Legal scholars argue that the pardon power is quite broad, but it is unclear whether the Founding Fathers intended for this power to encroach on another branch's power.
In the case of former Sheriff Joe Arpaio, President Donald Trump's pardon was particularly controversial due to its timing. Arpaio's lawyers argued that the pardon came before he was sentenced and before the final judgment was entered, so the conviction must be erased. However, the special prosecutor, Christopher Caldwell, argued that Arpaio gave up his right to appeal the conviction when he accepted the pardon.
While Trump's pardon of Arpaio was unprecedented, it is unlikely that it violated the Constitution. The President's pardon power is quite broad, and there is no explicit restriction on the timing of pardons. However, the pardon's impact on Arpaio's conviction and the implications for the separation of powers between the executive and judicial branches are still subject to legal debate.
Trump's use of the pardon power was marked by favoritism, frequently granting clemency to his supporters or political allies. Many of his grants of clemency were criticized by federal agents and prosecutors who investigated and prosecuted the cases. In response to criticism, Trump asserted that he is the "chief law enforcement officer" of the country.
When to File an Event Report: Understanding Triggers
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Yes, on August 25, 2017, President Donald Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio for criminal contempt of court.
Arpaio was convicted of criminal contempt for disobeying a federal judge's 2011 order to stop racial profiling in detaining "individuals suspected of being in the U.S. illegally". Trump pardoned Arpaio's conviction and any other offenses that might arise in connection with Melendres v. Arpaio.
While the pardon was considered troubling and unusual, legal experts have stated that Trump did not exceed his authority. The Constitution's pardons clause gives the president the power to "grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment". The pardon power extends only to federal crimes, and presidents are free to use it as they see fit.
