Justice Department to enforce reforms after Arpaio discrimination lawsuit

Arpaio fought back against Obama’s amnesty, announced in November 2014, and claimed the administration’s deferred-deportation program – allowing up to 5 million immigrants to stay in the country – would serve as a magnet for others to cross from Mexico into his jurisdiction. But Pillard, writing for the three-judge panel, said the sheriff’s contentions “are unduly speculative” and “rest on chains of supposition and contradict acknowledged realities”.

In an interview, Apraio said he plans to continue the legal battle by appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case.

Arpaio filed one of many lawsuits against the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program for “Dreamers” and a later executive order that extended the deportation deferrals to the Dreamers’ parents.

“It is pure speculation whether an increase in unlawful immigration would result in an increase, rather than a decrease or no change, in the number of crimes committed in Maricopa County”, Pillard wrote.

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s decision put an end to Mr. Arpaio’s latest challenge the administration’s immigration policy.

“Sheriff Arpaio has failed to allege an injury that is both fairly traceable to the deferred action policies and redressable by enjoining them”, Judge Cornelia “Nina” Pillard wrote. Judge Janice Rogers Brown, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, concurred in the opinion but wrote separately to emphasize that the ruling only applied to Arpaio’s standing, and not to whether the programs are “categorically shielded from suit”.

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

Attorney Larry Klayman of the organization Freedom Watch represents Arpaio in the case and has promised to appeal.

Although Arpaio’s challenge to Obama suffered a setback, other challenges are moving forward.

An appeals court in New Orleans heard arguments in that case a month ago. Instead, the court said Arpaio didn’t prove Maricopa County was harmed by the amnesty and thus had no legal standing to sue.

A federal court held in May 2013 that Arpaio’s department used racial profiling and illegal detentions to target Latinos, violating the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with its traffic enforcement practices.