Trump's Pardon Of Joe Arpaio: Legal Or Not?

On August 25, 2017, former US President Donald Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio, the former sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, who had been convicted of criminal contempt of court for disobeying a federal judge's order to stop racial profiling of Latinos. This decision sparked intense debate and criticism, with many questioning whether Trump had broken the law by pardoning Arpaio. Trump's use of his presidential pardon power in this case was seen as controversial and troubling, especially given Arpaio's history of civil rights violations and racial discrimination.

Trump's pardon of Joe Arpaio undermines respect for the law

On August 25, 2017, President Donald Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio, the former sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, for criminal contempt of court, a misdemeanor. Arpaio had been convicted of the crime two months earlier for disobeying a federal judge's order to stop racial profiling in detaining "individuals suspected of being in the U.S. illegally". The pardon covered Arpaio's conviction and any other relevant offenses, ensuring he would not serve time in prison.

Trump's pardon of Joe Arpaio has been widely seen as undermining respect for the law. Here are several reasons why:

• Bypassing the traditional review process: Trump "bypassed the traditional review process" by granting the pardon before Arpaio's sentencing. This was a unilateral decision, as Trump did not follow the usual practice of Justice Department review, which requires the violator to admit guilt and show remorse. This indicates that the pardon was a purely political act of support for Arpaio.
• Undermining the rule of law: Several experts, including law professors, political scientists, and experts on authoritarianism, described the pardon as illiberal and undermining the rule of law. U.S. Senator John McCain, a Republican from Arizona, criticized Trump, saying the pardon "undermined the president's claim for the respect of the rule of law." The other Senator from Arizona, Jeff Flake, also expressed his preference for the judicial process to take its course.
• Endorsing racism and xenophobia: Arpaio was convicted of racial profiling and specifically targeting Latinos in traffic stops and immigration enforcement. By pardoning him, Trump was seen as endorsing racism and xenophobia. Maria Castro, a community organizer with Puente Arizona, stated, "We've been calling him [Trump] a white supremacist, and now he's showing the rest of the country what we already knew."
• Sacrificing civil rights for political gain: Kevin R. Johnson, Dean of the University of California, Davis School of Law, wrote that Trump's pardon of Arpaio "sacrificed Latina/o civil rights for immigration enforcement." He further argued that the pardon demonstrated a lack of commitment to enforcing civil rights laws, especially in light of the recent clashes in Charlottesville.
• Undermining judicial authority: Hilarie Bass, president of the American Bar Association, stated that pardoning a law enforcement officer who has disobeyed the courts and violated the rights of people he swore to protect, "undercuts judicial authority and the public's faith in our legal system." Trump's actions have frequently raised concerns about his respect for the judiciary, a coequal branch of government.
• Sending a troubling message: The pardon sent a deeply troubling message to the nation, especially given Arpaio's history of flagrant and repeated violations of Latina/o civil rights. It signaled that breaking the law and engaging in racial discrimination would be condoned, as long as it served the political agenda of the president and his supporters.

Arpaio's conviction for criminal contempt of court

Joe Arpaio was the sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, for 24 years. He gained national prominence for his tough stance on illegal immigration. In 2011, a federal court order instructed Arpaio's agency to stop detaining people based solely on suspected civil immigration violations. However, Arpaio continued his signature immigration round-ups, which targeted Latino motorists.

In 2013, a judge ruled that Arpaio's office had racially profiled Latino drivers. Despite this, Arpaio continued his practices, and in 2015, the judge ordered a civil trial to determine whether Arpaio's office had violated three separate orders. In 2016, Arpaio was charged with misdemeanor contempt of court.

On July 31, 2017, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton found Arpaio guilty of criminal contempt for willfully violating the 2011 court order. The judge ruled that Arpaio had flagrantly disregarded the order to halt his immigration round-ups. Arpaio faced up to six months in confinement and a fine for the misdemeanor offense.

Arpaio's conviction stemmed from his defiance of a federal judge's order to stop racially profiling Latinos. He was accused of deliberately violating the injunction, which barred his officers from stopping and detaining Latino motorists based solely on their suspected immigration status.

During the trial, prosecutors presented evidence that Arpaio's deputies illegally detained 170 individuals after the 2011 injunction. They showcased news releases, media clips, and depositions to demonstrate that Arpaio prioritized his political reputation over complying with the judge's order. Arpaio's own words were cited more than 20 times in the judge's ruling, highlighting his defiance and intent to continue his practices.

Arpaio's defense attorneys argued that the judge's original order was unclear and ambiguous, leaving room for interpretation. They also shifted blame to Arpaio's former defense attorney, claiming that he had failed to provide adequate training on the order's requirements.

Trump bypassed the traditional pardon review process

On August 25, 2017, President Donald Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio, the former sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, for criminal contempt of court. Arpaio had been convicted of disobeying a federal judge's order to stop racial profiling in detaining individuals suspected of being in the U.S. illegally.

The fact that Trump did not follow the practice of Justice Department review, which requires that the violator admit guilt and show remorse, makes it clear that his pardon of Arpaio was a purely political act on behalf of a supporter. This action reflects the anti-immigrant, anti-Latino stereotypes evident in both the 2016 presidential campaign and Arpaio's well-documented history of illegally detaining and systematically discriminating against Latinos in Maricopa County, Arizona.

Arpaio's history of racial discrimination

Joe Arpaio, the former sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, gained notoriety for his harsh treatment of inmates and his xenophobic views. Arpaio's history of racial discrimination is well-documented, with numerous instances of him targeting and profiling Latinos in his community.

Arpaio was convicted of criminal contempt for violating a court order to stop racial profiling. He and his office were found to have unfairly targeted Hispanics during traffic stops, workplace raids, and neighborhood sweeps, detaining people without reasonable suspicion or legal grounds. This systematic discrimination violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Arizona Constitution.

Arpaio's most infamous act was the creation of "Tent City," an outdoor detention center where inmates were subjected to extreme temperatures, inadequate sanitation, and humiliating practices. He referred to it as a "concentration camp" and primarily housed Latinos there, forcing them to wear pink underwear and participate in chain gangs.

Arpaio's discriminatory policies extended beyond the jail. He conducted saturation patrols and immigration sweeps in Latino neighborhoods, targeting day laborers and businesses employing Latinos. He also ran operations targeting employees with stolen IDs, with all those arrested being undocumented immigrants.

In addition to racial profiling, Arpaio was accused of failing to properly investigate sex crimes, particularly those involving children of undocumented immigrants. He ignored hundreds of cases of sexual abuse and failed to follow up on reported child molestations, even when suspects were known.

Arpaio's actions caused widespread fear and harm within the Latino community, leading to numerous lawsuits and strong criticism from civil rights organizations and government agencies. His conduct was deemed unconstitutional and a violation of the fundamental rights and dignity of those he targeted.

The political implications of the pardon

The political implications of Trump's pardon of Joe Arpaio were significant and wide-ranging. The pardon was seen by many as an endorsement of racism and a slap in the face to the Latino community, with Arpaio having gained notoriety for his harsh treatment of undocumented immigrants and systematic discrimination against Latinos. The pardon was also criticised as an attack on the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, with Trump accused of undermining the constitution and the separation of powers.

The pardon caused a deep rift among politicians and the public, with strong condemnation from some, including prominent figures within Trump's own party. The pardon was criticised by Republican senators John McCain and Jeff Flake, with McCain stating that it "undermined [Trump's] claim for the respect of the rule of law". Flake expressed a similar sentiment, saying he "would have preferred that the president honour the judicial process and let it take its course". House Speaker Paul Ryan also opposed the pardon.

The pardon was also criticised by legal experts and political scientists, who described it as "troubling" and "unusual". Experts on authoritarianism characterised the pardon as "illiberal", undermining the rule of law. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) tweeted that "by pardoning Joe Arpaio, Donald Trump has sent another disturbing signal to an emboldened white nationalist movement that this White House supports racism and bigotry". The ACLU's deputy legal director, Cecillia Wang, called the pardon "a presidential endorsement of racism".

The pardon also had implications for Arpaio's political career. Despite initial hopes that the pardon might help rehabilitate his political brand, it ultimately failed to redeem him in the eyes of Arizona's changing electorate. Arpaio lost several subsequent bids for political office, including a run for his old job as sheriff in the Republican primary.

The pardon also galvanised activists and voters, particularly in the Latino community. The surge in Latino voter turnout in Arizona in recent years has been attributed in part to voters seeing Arpaio's defeat as a sign that their votes could make a difference. The grassroots organisers who successfully fought against Arpaio channelled their energy into mobilising voters of colour, contributing to Democratic victories in the state in the 2020 presidential and Senate races.

Frequently asked questions