Justice Dept. to Monitor Sheriff Joe on Court-Ordered Police Reforms

The point of the proceeding was simply to establish whether the Maricopa County sheriff could even bring his lawsuit, not to decide the issues he raised.

The You can introduce.S. Court of Appeals when it comes to the District of Columbia Circuit maintained a neighborhood legal procedure judge’s looking for that in fact Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio didn’t have lasting to file a lawsuit, a supply in You can include.S. jurisprudence which means he must show they have been directly wounded. One program would allow unauthorized immigrant parents of U.S. citizen children to qualify for deferred action and work permits, while another would expand the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program the administration launched in 2012.

Judge Nina Pillard, writing on behalf of a three-judge panel, said Arpaio’s predictions of higher crime rates and an increase in the jail population “rest on claims of supposition and contradict acknowledged realities”.

Klayman had argued that Arpaio would be harmed by the immigration action because there would be more crime as a result.

An appeals court in New Orleans heard arguments in that case a month ago.

“The Sheriff’s claims on the merits may well raise a constitutionally cogent point”, Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote, according to Politico.

Arpaio and his aides could face contempt charges from Snow.

Arpaio said, “we’re going to Supreme Court”. “We will continue to work toward resolving the legal challenges so that the administration can move forward with implementing all of the president’s common sense immigration policies”.

Larry Klayman, a lawyer for Arpaio, criticized the ruling and said he plans to appeal the case to the Supreme Court.

“We’ll take steps to deal responsibly with the millions of undocumented immigrants who already live in our country”, the president said in an address to the nation. “Let this be another reminder to Sheriff Arpaio and his allies that they are standing on the wrong side of the law, public opinion, and history”.

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.