DOJ Sets Sights on Maricopa County
In its latest effort to prevent state and local governments from assisting in the enforcement of immigration laws, President Obama’s Justice Department (DOJ) has filed an official complaint against Maricopa County, AZ; its Sheriff’s Department; and its Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, alleging various violations of the Constitution and federal law. (See Complaint, US v. Maricopa County, filed May 10, 2012; see also DOJ Press Release)The complaint, filed Thursday, alleges the Defendants engaged in three different types of unlawful conduct in violation of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments; the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994; and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Cmplt. at ¶ 7) These allegations of misconduct include: 1) a pattern or practice of discriminatory law enforcement actions against Latinos in Maricopa County; 2) discriminatory jail practices against Latino inmates with limited English proficiency (LEP); and (3) a pattern or practice of retaliatory actions against perceived critics. (Id. at ¶ 6)
In the DOJ’s first allegation, that practices of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) unlawfully discriminates against Latinos, the DOJ relies on anecdotes and unnamed studies to claim that MCSO officers unlawfully rely on race, color, or national origin in their enforcement of traffic laws. (Cmplt. at § I) Amongst its various claims is that Latinos are more likely to be the target of a traffic stop than non-Latino drivers engaged in similar conduct and that such officers engage in pre-textual stops, that officers mistreat Latinos during traffic stops, and that the Criminal Employment Squad (CES) of the MCSO (an immigration enforcement unit) targets Latinos during worksite raids. (Id.) To back up its allegations, the DOJ claims that the MCSO’s decision to make immigration enforcement a top priority, the MCSO’s lack of extensive guidelines to protect against discriminatory police practices, and that statements made by Sheriff Arpaio, all provide evidence of discriminatory intent. (Id.)
The DOJ’s second allegation, that the MCSO unlawfully discriminates against non-English speaking Latinos, again relies on anecdotes. (Id. at § II) Among other things, the DOJ alleges that MCSO jail officials intentionally discriminate against non-English speaking prisoners by typically making announcements in English only, penalizing prisoners for not submitting forms in English, and failing to provide a written language assistance plan. (Id. at ¶¶ 130; 124; 131)
Finally, DOJ’s third allegation claims that the MCSO and Sheriff Joe have violated the First Amendment by filing “unsubstantiated complaints and lawsuits” against critics of their policies in an effort to retaliate for protected speech. (Id. at § III) Specifically, the DOJ claims that the former Chief Deputy of the MCSO filed complaints with the Arizona State Bar against five attorneys who spoke out against MCSO, and filed complaints with the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct against four judges whom had made statements or ruled against MCSO. (Id. at ¶ 140-141) Because these complaints were ultimately dropped for a lack of facts or sufficient evidence, the DOJ claims the MCSO Chief Deputy must have acted in a retaliatory fashion by filing them. (Id. at ¶ 139-141) The DOJ also claims that MCSO would arrest protestors simply because they disagreed with its policies. (Id. at ¶ 149)
To prevail on the merits of its lawsuit, the DOJ must demonstrate that the policies of the Sheriff's office both had a “discriminatory effect” and were “motivated by a discriminatory purpose.” (See U.S. v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 465 (1996)) In determining whether there was a discriminatory purpose, courts generally evaluate several factors. These include whether the impact of the law bears more heavily on one race than another, the historical background of the policy, the sequence of events leading up to the policy, departures from normal procedure, and legislative history. (See Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Redev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266-268 (1977)
The DOJ is seeking an injunction against the MCSO’s policies and a judgment to deny the office from receiving federal funds. (Id. at ¶ 163-164)
No comments:
Post a Comment