Sheriff Joe Arpaio led the way in Supreme Court immigration fight

Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch applaud the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today to hear an appeal of President Barack Obama’s grant of amnesty to 5 million illegal aliens, rewriting the nation’s immigration laws, according to a released statement obtained by the 13,000-member National Association of Chiefs of Police.

Sheriff Arpaio was the first to file a legal challenge to Obama’s November 20, 2014, amnesty orders. Freedom Watch filed Sheriff Arpaio’s lawsuit on November 20, 2014, about two hours after Obama’s announcement. A series of Memorandum Orders signed by Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson (on Obama’s orders) granted amnesty, work permits, legal presence status, the right to driver’s licenses, and often welfare and other benefits to an estimated 5 million illegal aliens.Two weeks later, the State of Texas and many other States followed with a lawsuit of their own. The co-plaintiffs grew to twenty-six states. That lawsuit had

the benefit of a massive legal team drawing from twenty-six state’s attorneys general offices. But they also had the benefit of reviewing Sheriff Arpaio’s groundbreaking lawsuit and motion for preliminary injunction before finalizing their own lawsuit.

Sheriff Arpaio and Klayman will file an amicus curiae brief in the State of Texas v. United States of America appeal before the Supreme Court now. “Nothing less than the future of our nation as a functioning democracy is at stake,” explained Larry Klayman. “As I explained to the trial court judge in our own case on December 22, 2014, this is about the rule of law and the vitality of our constitutional republic far more than just about immigration. Once we allow our elected officials to tear up our Constitution and do whatever they wish, the great American experiment unique in human history is over.”

Sheriff Arpaio filed several amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs assisting in the State of Texas v. United States of America case, bringing important facts, circumstances and arguments to Judge Hanen’s attention. Freedom Watch noticed ideas, arguments, and legal precedents being cited by Judge Hanen’s decisions that were presented only by Freedom Watch’s briefs. (A friend of the court brief can only be filed if the judge agrees.)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the victory of the twenty-six states over Obama, and it is that decision against Obama that is now on appeal to the Supreme Court. The Fifth Circuit added to Judge Hanen’s opinion that Obama’s amnesty probably violates the substantive requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), by being in conflict with the law or the Constitution, not just the procedural requirements of the APA.

Arpaio and Klayman were disappointed that the Supreme Court did not take Arpaio’s appeal, as well. The Obama administration strongly argued in the Solicitor General’s brief that it was not necessary for the Supreme Court to take both cases. More establishment-type Republicans on the Court seem to focus more on working with state governments rather than a maverick like Arpaio. However, a decision in State of Texas v. United States of America should provide the same relief that Arpaio asked for.