A pardon may be more than just an act

President Donald Trump’s attempt at righting an alleged wrong hits a stumbling block, courtesy of a federal judge.

Trump issued a pardon for former Sheriff Joe Arpaio; an action which was halted by District Judge Susan Bolton. The judge ordered the Department of Justice file a memo and scheduled a hearing for October 4th, demanding an explanation on what many consider an unusual pardon.

It’s viewed unusual because Arpaio has only been found guilty of something, and has yet to be sentenced. Traditionally, experts have remarked that a normal pardon goes through a judicial process which sometimes can take years.

Many people across the country were surprised by his action, although he publicly toiled around the idea of pardoning the six-term sheriff for weeks.

Most Americans view Arpaio’s actions as notoriously racist in merit. What Arpaio called crime suppression sweeps, others called an attack against minorities, people of color, and illegal immigrants. Under his guidance county law enforcement officers would round up Hispanics and suspected illegal immigrants en masse. Finally in 2011, Arpaio was ordered by an Arizona judge to stop this suppression sweeps; yet, for an 18 months the order appeared to go unheard. Continuously there were allegations of inmates being tortured, his department refusing to investigate sex crimes against Latina children, and even a Hispanic woman being forced to give birth in shackles. Eventually he was found to be in contempt of court.

Joe Arpaio’s defense has been he unintentionally” violated the order, but had no intention of purposely violating the order. This would include things previously mentioned, along with: abuse of power, misuse of funds, improper clearance of cases, unlawful enforcement of immigration laws, and election law violations.

He has also referred to his tent jail as a concentration camp for prisoners, and to many, he seemed quite proud of that fact. Those who label themselves part of the Resistance Against Trump believes the American president committed a verifiable impeachable offense, despite Article II Section 2 of the US Constitution that gives a president unlimited to power to pardon anyone (possibly even including himself) for any federal crime except impeachable offenses.

These individuals praise Judge Bolton, and find Trumps pardon to be invalid because it offends the Due Process Clause. They claim through Arpaio’s term practically anyone who came to his jail had their rights violated; especially if they were in the inmate was a minority or Hispanic (and specifically after the 2011 injunction). This is also the belief of law professor Martin Redish, as noted in a New York Times article.

Whatever information the Trump Administration will present at the October hearing, people are still concerned about the 160 people who have died in Arpaio’s jail, and the lack of explanation or thought of consequences for the alleged abusive guards. The Arizona Central sees a very public legal fight over the horizon.