On November 20, 2014, Joe Arpaio, the Sheriff of Maricopa County in Arizona, filed this lawsuit in the D.C. District Court under the Declaratory Judgment Act and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), against President Obama, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the Director ...
read more >
On November 20, 2014, Joe Arpaio, the Sheriff of Maricopa County in Arizona, filed this lawsuit in the D.C. District Court under the Declaratory Judgment Act and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), against President Obama, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the U.S. Attorney General. Sheriff Arpaio, represented by private counsel, claimed that two federal programs constituted unconstitutional abuses of the President's power. The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program started June 15, 2012, and several additional programs--referred to by the plaintiff as Executive Order Amnesty (EOA) programs--started November 20, 2014. DACA [does what?]. EOA extends DACA to defer action for childhood arrivals who arrived after the earliest cut-off date and for parents and other relatives of U.S. citizens or persons lawfully present. [THIS ISN'T CLEAR]
Specifically, Sheriff Arpaio claimed that the challenged programs constituted a dramatic departure from prior interpretation and application of existing law and regulations and that the President cannot effect these changes by Executive Order. Plaintiff also argued that even if the Court deemed these dramatic changes constitutional, the challenged programs should have gone through notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures under the APA. Alternatively, Plaintiff challenged these actions pursuant to the APA as unlawful and invalid as arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, unreasonable, and/or otherwise not in accordance with law.
On December 4, 2014, Plaintiff sought a Preliminary Injunction, which the U.S. opposed, filing a brief that the court construed as a motion to dismiss. On December 23, 2014, the District Judge Beryl A. Howell denied the preliminary injunction and dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Judge Howell found that the plaintiff did not suffer a legally cognizable injury, and thus held that the Plaintiff lacked standing. Sheriff Arpaio, the Court explained, did not suffer injury in fact in his personal capacity because he sought to vindicate only a general interest in proper application of Constitution and laws. Although he alleged that undocumented immigrants had targeted him for assassination as a result of his stance on illegal immigration, neither of the challenged programs threatened the sheriff's life; in fact, his stance on illegal immigration existed prior to this case and the challenged programs. In addition, Sheriff Arpaio did not suffer injury in fact in his official capacity because he was asserting generalized grievances against federal policy and alleged injuries were largely speculative. The plaintiff also failed to show causation because neither challenged program authorized the conduct of which he complained. Arpaio v. Obama, 27 F.Supp.3d 185 (D.D.C. 2014).
On December 29, 2014, Plaintiff appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court. On August 14, 2015, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court, in an opinion by Judge Cornelia T.L. Pillard. Arpaio v. Obama, 797 F.3d 11 (D.C. Cir. 2015). This ended the case.Frances Hollander - 11/01/2015