Does Trump have authority to pardon Arpaio?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No as he wasn't convicted of violating federal law. I bet this pardon can be challenged and overturned.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

No as he wasn't convicted of violating federal law. I bet this pardon can be challenged and overturned.

?

He was being found guilty by a federal court for criminal contempt of a federal court.

[President Johnson]

Yes, because convicted uder federal law/a federal court. State court convictions can only be pardoned by the governor.

[The Other Castro]

Of course he does. It was still a horrible thing to do.

[Rookie Yinzer]

If it could be legally challenged and revoked he wouldn't have did it.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

If he knew it could be legally challenged and revoked he wouldn't have did it.

Afaik he has complete authority to pardon like this, and the only appropriate response is to impeach him. But I know things can get weird with more obscure edge-cases with the courts, so I suppose it's possible that it's possible he's not allowed to pardon technical violations (like this), just regular crimes. But I doubt it.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

I've never heard of a case of a pardon being challenged before.  This isn't something the courts can touch, sadly.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Richard Nixon was never convicted of anything. Ford still pardoned him - he simply phrased it as a Pardon for "Anything Nixon did or may have done during his presidency".

[Goldwater]

Of course he does. It was still a horrible thing to do.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I've never heard of a case of a pardon being challenged before.  This isn't something the courts can touch, sadly.

The only time a pardon was successfully challenged was when a recipient refused to accept it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wilson

[SWE]

No in that he's not a legitimate president and thus does not have authority.

[GeorgiaModerate]

No in that he's not a legitimate president and thus does not have authority.

This is silly.  Like him or not, he was duly elected.

[ProudModerate2]

Of course he does. It was still a horrible thing to do.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

No in that he's not a legitimate president and thus does not have authority.

This is silly.  Like him or not, he was duly elected.

As of now, it appears that he was duly elected, yes. Until an objective probe into the election gives it a clean bill of health, I don't think we can say that without reservation.

[GeorgiaModerate]

No in that he's not a legitimate president and thus does not have authority.

This is silly.  Like him or not, he was duly elected.

As of now, it appears that he was duly elected, yes. Until an objective probe into the election gives it a clean bill of health, I don't think we can say that without reservation.

Perhaps not, but I think we must assume it to be true unless solid evidence proves otherwise.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Of course he does. It was still a horrible thing to do.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

all these green avatars lol

[Stranger in a strange land]

Just want to remind everyone that a pardon is an admission of guilt and can be used as evidence in a civil lawsuit. I bet Maricopa County is thrilled.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Just want to remind everyone that a pardon is an admission of guilt and can be used as evidence in a civil lawsuit. I bet Maricopa County is thrilled.

I honestly don't care if he has to pay a million or two to the county. He deserves to be in Jail, which the pardon makes impossible.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Just want to remind everyone that a pardon is an admission of guilt and can be used as evidence in a civil lawsuit. I bet Maricopa County is thrilled.

I honestly don't care if he has to pay a million or two to the county. He deserves to be in Jail, which the pardon makes impossible.

Not my point. If someone sued the county (rather than Arpaio himself) for unlawful detention, Arpaio's pardon could be used as evidence of liability on the county's part. Such a case would probably settle, but there are likely to be many. Could one of our lawyers please tell me if I'm in error here?

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Just want to remind everyone that a pardon is an admission of guilt and can be used as evidence in a civil lawsuit. I bet Maricopa County is thrilled.

I honestly don't care if he has to pay a million or two to the county. He deserves to be in Jail, which the pardon makes impossible.

Not my point. If someone sued the county (rather than Arpaio himself) for unlawful detention, Arpaio's pardon could be used as evidence of liability on the county's part. Such a case would probably settle, but there are likely to be many. Could one of our lawyers please tell me if I'm in error here?

Do you mean Arpaio would sue the county for unlawfully detaining him? I don't think anyone else would have standing. Also, not a lawyer, but the county obviously had no way of knowing that the Pardon would happen, so unless they detained him after the pardon was issued, I imagine they're not liable for detaining him.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Just want to remind everyone that a pardon is an admission of guilt and can be used as evidence in a civil lawsuit. I bet Maricopa County is thrilled.

I honestly don't care if he has to pay a million or two to the county. He deserves to be in Jail, which the pardon makes impossible.

Not my point. If someone sued the county (rather than Arpaio himself) for unlawful detention, Arpaio's pardon could be used as evidence of liability on the county's part. Such a case would probably settle, but there are likely to be many. Could one of our lawyers please tell me if I'm in error here?

Do you mean Arpaio would sue the county for unlawfully detaining him? I don't think anyone else would have standing. Also, not a lawyer, but the county obviously had no way of knowing that the Pardon would happen, so unless they detained him after the pardon was issued, I imagine they're not liable for detaining him.

No, an immigrant who was detained under Arpaio's order in contempt of federal courts.

[Tartarus Sauce]

Yes, but he absolutely should not have done so. It was a blow to civil rights, the due process of the courts, and the integrity of the law.

[emailking]

No in that he's not a legitimate president and thus does not have authority.

This is silly.  Like him or not, he was duly elected.

As of now, it appears that he was duly elected, yes. Until an objective probe into the election gives it a clean bill of health, I don't think we can say that without reservation.

He won the electoral college vote so he was duly elected no matter what any probe says. Even if he was given the electoral votes for a state that a probe incontrovertibly proves he did not win, he is still duly elected. Congress is the final authority on whether to accept a state's electoral votes. They accepted all of them, thereby affirming the states' certified results in the only sense that matters. Remember, Constitutionally a popular vote in a state isn't even required for electoral vote allocation.

[Badger]

Just want to remind everyone that a pardon is an admission of guilt and can be used as evidence in a civil lawsuit. I bet Maricopa County is thrilled.

I honestly don't care if he has to pay a million or two to the county. He deserves to be in Jail, which the pardon makes impossible.

Not my point. If someone sued the county (rather than Arpaio himself) for unlawful detention, Arpaio's pardon could be used as evidence of liability on the county's part. Such a case would probably settle, but there are likely to be many. Could one of our lawyers please tell me if I'm in error here?

Off the top of my head, the admission to criminal contempt is one of refusing to follow the Court's orders. There's little disputing that point before or after the pardon. Thus the underlying allegations of  wrongdoing aren't much affected, though to anyone that can show damages related specifically to Arpaio's delayed implementation which caused the contempt action, they'd have a better claim.

If I was Maricopa County, I'd argue that what Joe did as a private citizen in accepting the pardon affects only his personal liability. The EX-sheriff doing so shouldn't bind Maricopa County for liability purposes.

I wouldn't bet the farm on that claim, but it's certainly colorable.