Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio loses bid to have his criminal record wiped clean

[Jim Lane]

30. Long or short, it's still all just assertions.

Let me give you an (admittedly remote) analogy. Suppose a state constitution contains a provision that's worded identically to a provision in the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court holds that that provision in the U.S. Constitution doesn't prohibit the government (federal or state) from doing X. The state's highest court says, Oh yeah, well, we interpret those exact same words in our constitution differently, we say that the governmental action in question IS prohibited by those words, so our state government isn't allowed to do it, and you nine nitwits can take your federal supremacy and shove it up your robes.

This has actually happened, IIRC, although I believe the state court decision was worded somewhat more circumspectly.

A layperson might say that the state court was disagreeing with SCOTUS, the highest court in the land. Nevertheless, the principle of federal supremacy doesn't prevent the state from running its own affairs as it chooses, within limits. Each state can set its own standards for who gets a concealed-carry permit or a private investigator's license or the like (again, within limits, no racial discrimination etc.). If the state's law expressly provides that no one convicted of contempt of court may become a PI, whether or not he's pardoned, and whether the conviction was in state or federal court, does denying him a PI license violate the U.S. Constitution? I'm not convinced that it does. That's why I asked if it had ever been litigated.

As for the civil case, I see less uncertainty there. We don't need to get into admission against interest. With or without a plea, there was a finding of fact in court. That's res judicata against the defendant. The subsequent pardon means that no sentence can be imposed for the violation, but, as the judge stated in refusing to vacate Arpaio's conviction, the pardon doesn't affect the underlying finding of fact. If the pardon means that a federal court wouldn't hear an appeal of the conviction, because it's deemed moot, then there'd arguably be no res judicata, but if the state has the law I hypothesized then the appeal shouldn't be dismissed as moot. In the present case, it doesn't matter. Arpaio won't be so foolish as to file an appeal, because he'd get nothing for his trouble but a ringing 3-0 affirmance reiterating what a sleazeball he was.