No. 18-____ IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ———— MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, Petitioner, v. MANUEL DE JESUS, ORTEGA MELENDRES, et al., Respondents. ———— On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ———— PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ———— RICHARD K. WALKER Counsel of Record WALKER & PESKIND, PLLC 16100 N. 71st Street, Suite 140 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 (480) 483-6336 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner December 6, 2018 WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D. C. 20002 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)? PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS Defendants below were former Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio (later replaced by Sheriff Paul Penzone), and Maricopa County, Arizona. Plaintiffs below were Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres; David and Jessica Rodriguez; Velia Meraz and Manuel Nieto, Jr.; Somos America/We Are America, a non-profit membership organization; and a class of individuals described as “[a]ll Latino persons who, since January, 2007, have been or will be in the future, stopped, detained, questioned or searched by [Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office] agents while driving or sitting in a vehicle on a public roadway or parking area in Maricopa County, Arizona.” Ortega-Melendres v. Arpaio, 836 F. Supp. 2d 959, 969 (D. Ariz. 2011), aff’d sub nom. Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2012) (hereinafter “Melendres I”). iii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED…………………………….ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS ………..……….iii TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………..iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES…………………………..viii PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI…………1 OPINIONS BELOW……………………………………...1 JURISDICTION…………………………………………..1 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED……………………………...2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE………………………….3 A. Procedural History……………………………3 1. The District Court’s Preliminary Injunction…………………………………..3 2. The District Court’s Initial Permanent Injunction and Supplemental Injunction…………………………………..4 3. The Contempt Proceeding……………….7 iv 4. The District Court’s Second Supplemental Injunction………………...9 5. The District Court’s Order re Victim Compensation……………………………12 B. Criminal Contempt Proceedings and Sheriff Arpaio’s Defeat At The Polls……………....13 C. The Ninth Circuit’s Decision……………….14 REASONS FOR GRANTING PETITION………..….18 I. The Ninth Circuit’s Conclusion That Sheriffs Are Final Policymakers For Arizona Counties With Respect To Law Enforcement Flouts This Court’s Decision In McMillian, Conflicts With The Decisions Of Other Circuits, And Infringes States’ Sovereign Rights……18 A. The Ninth Circuit’s Failure To Construe And Apply Arizona Law Concerning The Structure And Functions Of County-Level Government Institutions…………...19 B. The Ninth Circuit’s Decision Cannot Be Reconciled With McMillian…....21 C. The Ninth Circuit’s Decision Conflicts With Rulings In Other Circuits………………………………..27 v II. The Ninth Circuit’s Decision Sustains District Court Orders That Fail To Respect Limits On The County’s Authority Under State Law……………28 III. The Ninth Circuit’s Decision Condones District Court Orders That Massively Intrude Upon Arizona’s Sovereign Prerogatives And Ignore Boundaries Mandated By The Precepts Of Federalism………………………………..32 CONCLUSION…………………………………………..36 APPENDIX A – U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Melendres v. Maricopa County, 897 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2018).……………………………………….…….4 APPENDIX B – U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Opinion Denying Petition for Panel Rehearing and En Banc Determination (September 7, 2018)….16 APPENDIX C – U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Order Granting Motion to Stay Mandate (September 17, 2018)...………………………………….18 APPENDIX D – U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Findings of Facts and Order Setting A Hearing for May 31, 2016, 2016 WL 2783715 (May 13, 2016)………….……………………………………….20 vi APPENDIX E – U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Second Amended Second Supplemental Permanent Injunction/Judgment Order (July 26, 2016)……………………..….…………………………...237 APPENDIX F – U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Order re Victim Compensation, 2016 WL 4415038 (August 19, 2016)….………………………...319 APPENDIX G – U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Order re Maricopa County’s Recognition of Rights as a Party Litigant (February 26, 2016)...…337 APPENDIX H – U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Amended Order re review of Monitor invoices (May 8, 2015).………………………………..340 APPENDIX I – U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Melendres v. Arpaio (“Melendres III”), 815 F.3d 645 (9th Cir. 2016)……..…………………………342 APPENDIX J – U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States v County of Maricopa, Arizona, 889 F.3d 648 (9th Cir. 2018)….….……………………352 APPENDIX K – Relevant provisions from the U.S. Constitution, the Arizona Constitution and applicable Federal and Arizona statutes….………………….....364 vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979)…………………..33 Bryant v. Ford Motor Co., 886 F.2d 1526 (9th Cir. 1989)……………………………………………………….24 City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112 (1988)………………………………………………….20, 36 Claiborne Co. v. Brooks, 111 U.S. 400 (1884)………..32 Clayton v. State, 38 Ariz. 135 (1931)………………….20 Dimmig v. Pima County, 2009 WL 3465744 (Az. App. Oct. 27, 2009)…………………………………………….26 Flanders v. Maricopa County, 203 Ariz. 368 (App. 2002)…………………………………………………..24, 25 Franklin v. Zaruba, 150 F.3d 682 (7th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1141 (1999)………………………27, 28 Fridena v. Maricopa County, 18 Ariz. App. 527 (1972)………………………………………………… 21, 26 Grech v. Clayton County, Georgia, 335 F.3d 1326 (11th Cir. 2003)………………………………………………….27 Goldstein v. City of Long Beach, 715 F.3d 750 (9th Cir. 2013)……………………………………………………….26 Gluth v. Kangas, 951 F.2d 1504 (9th Cir. 1991)……….6 viii Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Wainscott, 41 Ariz. 439 (1933)………………………………….19, 29, 31 Hook v. Ariz. Dept. of Corrections, 107 F.3d 1397 (9th Cir. 1997)………………………………………………….30 Hounshell v. White, 220 Ariz. 1 (App. 2008)………….22 Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821 (1994)…………………………..16 Kelly v. Metropolitan Count Bd. of Education, 836 F.2d 986 (6th Cir. 1987)………………………………………..32 Kloberdanz v. Arpaio, 2014 WL 309078 (D. Ariz. 2014)………………………………………………21, 22, 24 Knight v. C.D. Vernon, 214 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2000)……………………………………………………….28 Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996)…………………..33 Luhrs v City of Phoenix, 52 Ariz. 438 (1938)………….20 Maricopa County v. Melendres, 136 S.Ct. 799 (2016)……………………………………………………….7 McMillian v. Monroe County, Alabama, 520 U.S. 781 (1997)………ii, 16, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 36 Melendres v. Arpaio, 989 F.Supp.2d 822 (D. Ariz. 2013)……………………………………………………...…5 Melendres v. Arpaio, 2013 WL 5498218 (D. Ariz. 2013)………………………………………………………...5 ix Melendres v. Arpaio, 784 F.3d 1254 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Melendres II”)……………………………………..6, 7, 14 Melendres v. Maricopa County, 815 F.3d 645 (9th Cir. 2016) (“Melendres III”)…………………………..7, 17, 24 Melendres v. Maricopa County, 897 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2018…………………………………………………………1 Merrill v. Phelps, 52 Ariz. 526 (1938)…………………23 Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267………………6, 14, 15 Mohave County v. Mohave-Ingman Estates, Inc., 120 Ariz. 417 (1978)…………………………………………..30 Monell v. Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)……………………………………………………...21 Ochser v. Maricopa County, 2007 WL 1577910 (D. Ariz. 2007)……………………………………………………….21 Ortega-Melendres v. Arpaio, 836 F.Supp.2d 959 (D. Ariz. 2011), aff’d sub nom. Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Melendres I”)…………iii, 3, 4 Puente Arizona v. Arpaio, 2017 WL 1133012 (D. Ariz. Mar. 27, 2017)……………………………………………24 Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976)…………………………………iii, 15, 16, 34, 35, 36 Ryan v. County of DuPage, 45 F.3d 1090 (7th Cir. 1995)……………………………………………….………28 State v. Jaastad, 43 Ariz. 458 (1934)………………….20 x Turquitt v. Jefferson County, Alabama, 137 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 874 (1998)…..27 United Bank v. Mesa N. O. Nelson Co., Inc., 121 Ariz. 438 (1979)………………………………………………...23 United States v. Arpaio, 2:16-CR-01012-PHX-SRB (D. Ariz. Dec. 13, 2016)………………………………………14 United States v. Arpaio, 887 F.3d 979 (9th Cir.