U.S. court throws out Arizona sheriff’s immigration policy challenge

The Financial Express – by Reuters

A federal appeals court on Friday threw out a lawsuit brought by an Arizona sheriff who argued that President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration were unconstitutional.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a district court judge’s finding that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio lacked standing to sue, a provision in U.S. law that means he has to prove he has been directly harmed.  

He claimed his office had been injured by Obama’s November 2014 orders that are designed to ease the threat of deportation for about 4.7 million undocumented immigrants.

Judge Nina Pillard, writing on behalf of a three-judge panel, said Arpaio’s claims “rest on speculation beyond that permitted” by the court’s precedents.

The Obama administration provisions would give temporary legal status and work permits to eligible immigrants.

Arpaio, a longtime Republican firebrand on immigration, has had several actions stymied by the courts this year.

In April, he admitted to civil contempt charges in a Phoenix court after failing to comply with several court orders banning his police force from racially profiling immigrants.

The Supreme Court in June also upheld a 2014 appeals court ruling that struck down an Arizona law that denied bail to illegal immigrants charged with certain felonies.

Obama’s executive actions are currently on ice, after a Texas judge ruled against his administration in February.

That more substantive challenge brought by 26 states, led by Republican bastion Texas, will be heard by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in July and could ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.

Republicans have brought a swath of lawsuits against administration officials on immigration and Obama’s signature healthcare law over the past year, aiming to curb what they view as executive overreach.


9 thoughts on “U.S. court throws out Arizona sheriff’s immigration policy challenge

  1. What a joke. He has no standing to sue? With millions of rapist wetbacks swarming over the border, every American has standing to sue, but this just goes to show how useless our “justice” system is.

    Anyone who thinks they’re going to find any relief from our problems through the court system should remember this, and a hundred other cases just like it.

    1. Joe does know that; an it is not a waste of time. It is the few tools at his disposal. He keeps the facts and problems in the news to keep us informed. I respect his courage and endurance.

  2. The “Crown courts” meaning our current justice system have ALL been hy-jacked. That gold fringe on the American flag represents Maritime Laws. Unless you go into court knowing how to represent yourself or your citizens the Maritime Laws are not in your favor. Obtaining legal representation knowing the difference between Admiralty/Maritime and or Common Laws is your only defense. Your BAR attorney works for the Crown! BAR standing for BRITISH ACCREDITED REGISTRY. The Original 13th Amendment was ratified but purposely hidden which has to do with Titles of Nobility. http://politicalvelcraft.org/2014/01/02/states-have-the-power-to-render-all-obamas-federal-actions-unenforceable/


    1. I dont even have the time to pick apart you paragraph and show all of the contradictions and inaccuracies.

      You got the idea though. Just need to use the right words when talking about courts and laws and statutes and such.

      I wouldnt have even said anything if you didnt use words like “our” and “your’ as in “our justice system” and “your BAR attorney”

      Work on it. Your in a good place to learn and practice.

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *