(Creative Commons)
Last Friday night, while Hurricane Harvey flooded Texas, President Trump pardoned Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio of his contempt of court conviction.
Four weeks ago, Arpaio was found guilty for blatantly disobeying a court order demanding that he stop his harsh immigration controls. The court order was issued in 2011 after the sheriff's office was accused of violating the Constitution by using racial profiling to target Latinos; Arpaio was specifically known to stop immigrants based solely on a suspicion that they were illegal, with no true evidence backing his claims. After the court order was issued, Arpaio, knowing fully what the orders were, extended his patrols another 17 months and declared to his subordinates that he would continuing doing what he was doing no matter what the court order designated for him to do.
Arpaio has since been pardoned by Trump for this misdemeanor (before he was even sentenced), but he now seeks to clear his name by asking the judge to throw out the conviction against him. On Monday August 28th, Arpaio and his attorneys went to court claiming that the judge in his contempt of court case was biased in the ruling and Arpaio himself "didn't do anything wrong." He has not yet revealed any reason as to why he thinks the judge was unfair, but Arpaio assures that he has all the evidence of "bias and everything else" documented and ready to present at court. President Trump of course agrees that the ruling was unjust and that Arpaio was a "patriot" for stopping any immigrant that he thought looked suspicious.
Like Trump, Arpaio has a history of fighting against judges, consistent to his present actions. He was accused of investigating the judge who oversaw his profiling case, and made an incorrect accusation of bribery against a judge who ruled against him in 2009. His decision to try and throw his ruling, however, is unconventional, as the pardon is usually the "last word in a case," as Jeffrey Crouch, a professor at American University puts it.
Arpaio's request for his conviction to be thrown has struck even more controversy surrounding his pardon and subsequent actions. "Trump may be taking Arpaio off the hook for jail time, but he can't change history or erase the measure of justice that the court's findings represent," Cecilia Wang, a lawyer in Arpaio's racial profiling case, said.
Connection to Class/My Analysis:
Trump's pardoning of Arpaio was extremely controversial in the first place, with critics believing that Trump only rewarded Arpaio with a pardon because he was a long-time Trump supporter.
The pardon was unconventional compared to the pardons rewarded by other presidents. Arpaio's crime isn't one presidents normally consider suitable for clemency, and Trump rewarded Arpaio his pardon only eight months after the start of his presidency, whereas most presidents who have given high-profile pardons in the past have waited until the end of their presidency (Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich in 2001; George Bush pardoned Caspar W. Weinberger in 1992). Furthermore, Trump chose to pardon someone who did not officially apply for a pardon, and was not even convicted long enough to be issued a sentencing before being pardoned. Many other people have actually applied for a pardon and have been waiting years to get one, but Trump chose to pardon Arpaio instead. Pardons are usually also granted to people who express remorse for what they have done (as pardons are issues of forgiveness and not innocence), and Arpaio has been everything but apologetic for his actions.
Despite the atypical circumstances of the pardon, Trump's actions are technically legal. The Constitution gives the president the right to "grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." While it is suggested that the president take a 5 year waiting period to ensure that the petitioner is well-adjusted and law-abiding, the president is not obligated to do so and may exercise their right to pardon anytime after a federal offense has been committed. Neither the legislative branch nor the judicial branch may intervene to limit the effect of a pardon, or pass laws to withhold a pardon from any person. This is one of the places in government where separation of powers does not really apply, as the president is allowed to do as he pleases without the other two branches really checking whether he is abusing his power. However, his pardon is paradoxical, as he is pardoning someone for violating (racial profiling) the same Constitution that grants him unlimited pardoning rights.
(Michael Chow/The Republic)
Discussion Questions:
Do you think the president should have full control over the power to pardon? Why?
Do you think Trump's decision to pardon Arpaio was an abuse of power? Why? If yes, what steps can we, as the public, take to discourage similar behavior in the future?
Should Arpaio's court conviction be thrown? Why or why not?
Article:
Trump pardons Arpaio
Arpaio asks judge to undo conviction
Fun Fact: Arpaio and Trump have the same birthday. Astrology still a pseudoscience?