Judge lets Trump’s pardon of ex-Sheriff Arpaio stand
PHOENIX — President Donald Trump’s pardon of former Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s conviction for disobeying a court order in an immigration case will stand after a judge Wednesday rejected arguments that the pardon would encourage government officials to flout similar judicial commands in the future.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton cited U.S. Supreme Court precedent in formally dismissing the criminal case against the former six-term sheriff known for his harsh treatment of inmates and immigration enforcement crackdowns.
She held off on ruling on Arpaio’s request to throw out all orders in the case, including a blistering 14page ruling in which the judge explained her original reasoning in finding that Arpaio was guilty of a crime.
“I have concluded the pardon is valid,” Bolton said.
The hearing Wednesday came five weeks after Trump pardoned Arpaio’s conviction for intentionally defying a 2011 court order to stop his traffic patrols that targeted immigrants.
The former sheriff, who didn’t attend Wednesday’s hearing, was accused of continuing the patrols for 17 months so that he could promote his immigration enforcement efforts in a bid to boost his successful 2012 re-election campaign.
Arpaio, who endorsed Trump and appeared alongside him at rallies during the 2016 campaign, has acknowledged prolonging the patrols, but insisted his disobedience wasn’t intentional and blamed one of his former attorneys for not adequately explaining the order’s importance.
Critics say the Aug. 25 pardon removed the last chance at holding Arpaio legally accountable for a long history of misconduct, including a 2013 civil verdict in which Arpaio’s officers were found to have racially profiled Latinos in the sheriff’s immigration patrols. The order that Arpaio acknowledged violating was issued by U.S. District Court Judge Murray Snow in the profiling case.
Prosecutor John Keller said it was appropriate to dismiss the case against Arpaio.
“This prosecution is over,” Keller said.
Bolton has previously said case law suggests a pardon doesn’t erase a recipient’s underlying record of conviction and instead is aimed at lessening or canceling punishment.