No. 18-735

Maricopa County, Arizona v. Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, et al.

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2018-12-10
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Relisted (7)
Tags: 10th-amendment 42-usc-1983 contempt-powers county-authority-under-state-law federal-courts federalism federalism-limits-on-federal-courts final-policymaker guarantee-clause mcmillian-precedent rizzo-v-goode sovereign-prerogatives tenth-amendment
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity CriminalProcedure Immigration JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2019-10-01 (distributed 7 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Are sheriffs 'final policymakers' under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for their counties with regard to law enforcement?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In the Ninth Circuit, the precepts of federalism often count for very little. They are, at most, but minor hurdles to be vaulted over by federal courts on their way to superimposing on State and local governmental institutions the courts’ preferences as to how those institutions should be structured and run. Here, the Ninth Circuit and the District Court have disregarded and misapplied Arizona law and this Court’s precedents to find Arizona’s sheriffs to be “final policymakers” for their respective counties and hold Maricopa County, Arizona (“the County”) responsible for law enforcement actions over which the County had no control. The courts below have saddled the County with substantial cost and other burdens for conduct of former Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio (“the Sheriff’) and his deputies found to have been contumacious, without regard to limitations on the County’s authority to provide such funding and without regard to legally condoned processes by which such funding could be obtained. Further, massive usurpations of the prerogatives of the Sheriff have been engineered and imposed, apparently on the theory that constitutional constraints on federal judicial disappear whenever the courts exercise their contempt powers. The questions presented are: 1. Applying the analytical mandates of McMillian v. Monroe County, Alabama, 520 U.S. 781 (1997), to county-level governmental institutions established under Arizona law, are sheriffs “final policymakers” under 42 U.S.C. § ii 1983 for their counties with regard to the conduct of law enforcement matters? 2. May federal courts, consistent with the Guarantee Clause and the Tenth Amendment, compel local governmental institutions to do things they are not authorized to do under State law? 3. Are federal courts at liberty, in exercising their contempt powers, to ignore the precepts of federalism, notwithstanding this Court’s decision in Rizzo v. Goode, 432 U.S. 362 (1976)?

Docket Entries

2019-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2019-07-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-06-19
Rescheduled.
2019-06-17
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/20/2019.
2019-06-12
Rescheduled.
2019-06-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/13/2019.
2019-06-05
Rescheduled.
2019-06-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/6/2019.
2019-05-29
Rescheduled.
2019-05-28
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/30/2019.
2019-05-21
Rescheduled.
2019-05-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/23/2019.
2019-05-15
Rescheduled.
2019-04-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/16/2019.
2019-04-24
Reply of petitioner Maricopa County, Arizona filed.
2019-04-10
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2019-03-11
Brief of respondents Manuel De Jesus Melendres, et al. in opposition filed.
2019-03-07
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including April 10, 2019.
2019-03-06
Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 11, 2019 to April 10, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-02-06
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including March 11, 2019, for all respondents.
2019-02-05
Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 8, 2019 to March 11, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-01-08
The motions to extend the time to file responses are granted and the time is extended to and including February 8, 2019, for all respondents.
2019-01-07
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 9, 2019 to February 8, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-01-03
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 9, 2019 to February 8, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2018-12-06
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 9, 2019)

Attorneys

Manuel De Jesus Melendres, et al.
Cecillia Derphine WangAmerican Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Respondent
Cecillia Derphine WangAmerican Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Respondent
Maricopa County, Arizona
Richard K. WalkerWalker & Peskind, PLLC, Petitioner
Richard K. WalkerWalker & Peskind, PLLC, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent