Pardon of Joe Arpaio
[1] 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.
[2][3] The pardon covered Arpaio's conviction and "any other offenses under Chapter 21 of Title 18, United States Code that might arise, or be charged, in connection with Melendres v.
"[4] The official White House statement announcing the grant of clemency described Arpaio as a "worthy candidate" having served the nation for more than fifty years "protecting the public from the scourges of crime and illegal immigration.
[12] According to The Washington Post, Trump had previously asked Attorney General Jeff Sessions if the government could drop its case against Arpaio but was advised it would not be appropriate.
"[2] Representative Andy Biggs said Arpaio's conviction was "the culmination of a political witch hunt by the Obama administration to sideline and destroy a formidable opponent.
"[20] Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton considered it a slap in the face to Maricopa County whereas Arizona Governor Doug Ducey was among the politicians who praised the pardon,[21] crediting Arpaio with helping to reduce crime over a long career.
[25] In response to the pardon, The Washington Post said it was "a controversial decision, one that Trump critics labeled as an example of the president's illiberal, rule-of-law violating, authoritarian impulses.
"[10][9] Harvard Law School professor Charles Fried, the former solicitor general for Ronald Reagan, said Trump's use of authority was specifically "to undermine the only weapon that a judge has in this kind of ultimate confrontation.
[8] Cornell Law School professor Josh Chafetz argued that the problem with the pardon was not so much the process (as the president's power on this issue is broad and unqualified), but rather that "Arpaio's entire claim to national recognition was based on his being a xenophobe, a racist and an officer of the machinery of government who relished wielding that machinery to degrade some of the most powerless members of our society.
"[27] Adam Liptak, attorney and Supreme Court correspondent, questioned the wisdom of the pardon but not its legitimacy: "It was the first act of outright defiance against the judiciary by a president who has not been shy about criticizing federal judges who ruled against his businesses and policies.
'"[8] After the August 2017 pardon was issued, Bolton requested legal arguments from attorneys on both sides regarding how they wanted to move forward since a verdict was reached but he had not yet been technically convicted.
[28][29] Amicus briefs arguing that the pardon unconstitutionally infringed on the power of the federal courts were filed by the Protect Democracy Project and Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center.
"[29] At the October 2017 hearing, Bolton held the position that "she had no choice but to validate Arpaio's Aug. 25 pardon by President Donald Trump and throw out the finding of guilt in his criminal contempt case because he had not yet been sentenced and was not afforded an opportunity to appeal the verdict.
[33]ACLU-AZ deputy legal director, Cecillia Wang, attorney for the plaintiffs, agreed with Bolton's denial of the motion stating, "The court made detailed findings after a bench trial about Joe Arpaio's criminal conduct.
