SG's Office Turns Against Joe Arpaio at US Supreme Court
The U.S. Justice Department, opposing Joe Arpaio, says the U.S. Supreme Court should not disturb the appointment of a Boies Schiller partner as a special prosecutor in the contempt case against the former Arizona sheriff.
March 28, 2019 at 01:14 PM
5 minute read
The U.S. Supreme Court should not disturb a federal appeals court's appointment of a special prosecutor who will defend the criminal contempt order lodged against President Donald Trump ally and former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the Justice Department said in a new court filing.
The special prosecutor, Christopher Caldwell of Boies Schiller Flexner, was appointed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit last year. The appointment came after the Justice Department announced it would back Arpaio's push to vacate his contempt conviction after he received a pardon from Trump.
Trump's pardon of Arpaio, although not squarely challenged in the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court cases, looms large in the backdrop of the court action. The pardon drew a surge of criticism by some lawyers, who argued the president's use of executive power benefited a political supporter and interfered with the proper functioning of the courts.
Arpaio's case tees up a rare fight over the practical consequences of a presidential pardon and the power of courts to appoint special prosecutors to represent specific interests. The Justice Department has resisted any push to challenge the lawfulness of Arpaio's pardon.
Noel Francisco, the U.S. solicitor general, told the justices Wednesday there is no need—at this point—to overturn Caldwell's appointment as the special prosecutor.
“The special-prosecutor appointment can and should be narrowly construed as tantamount to the appointment of an amicus curiae,” Francisco wrote. He added: “So construed, the order would avoid the serious constitutional concerns posed by a more broadly empowered special prosecutor.”
Caldwell's appointment concerned the Justice Department, to be sure, but government lawyers decided not to appeal the order to the Supreme Court.
Arpaio's lawyers, including Dennis Wilenchik of Wilenchik & Bartness, want the justices to block the special prosecutor from having any role in the case as it unfolds in the Ninth Circuit. They contend the appointment of Caldwell violates separation of powers and that only the Justice Department can speak for the United States.
“The lower court has no power to replace the Department of Justice as prosecutors for the United States in a criminal case—including, if not particularly in, a prosecution for contempt of court,” Wilenchik wrote in his petition at the Supreme Court.
Caldwell, for his part, told the Supreme Court on Wednesday it should turn down Arpaio's effort challenging his appointment.
Arpaio “does not come close to carrying the heavy burden that he bears in seeking such extraordinary relief,” said Caldwell, a partner in the Los Angeles office of Boies Schiller who focuses on the entertainment industry, white-collar defense, securities and professional liability.
Francisco's brief raised the possibility that the government would return to the Supreme Court in the event Caldwell's role, as it plays out in the Ninth Circuit, was more than a friend-of-the-court.
“If the special prosecutor in the future expands his role beyond that of a functional amicus curiae in the court of appeals, this court's review likely would be warranted,” Francisco wrote. “A special prosecutor operating with broader powers could impede core executive functions in a variety of ways.”
The criminal contempt against Arpaio stemmed from his violation of a court order that said he was forbidden, as sheriff, to detain immigrants for further investigation without reasonable suspicion about their legal status.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton of the District of Arizona said in 2017 that Arpaio's pardon spared him punishment but did not “'revise the historical facts' of this case.” She refused his push to vacate her orders in the case.
Francisco on Wednesday offered only a fleeting nod to a decades-old Supreme Court ruling that confronted the broad scope of the president's pardon power. The Supreme Court in 1925 “rejected the argument that the president's pardon power does not encompass the power to pardon individuals prosecuted or convicted for criminal contempt,” Francisco told the justices.
The Justice Department's brief is posted below:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
Auditor Finds 'Significant Deficiency' in FTC Accounting to Tune of $7M
4 minute readTrump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250