article: This lawsuit was the result of an investigation launched by the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in 2009 into the alleged targeting and unconstitutional treatment of Latinos by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. (The DOJ's initial inquiry apparently started in 2008, but the formal investigation opened with notice to the Sheriff's Office in March 2009.) The Sheriff's Office declined to cooperate in the investigation, leading the DOJ to file a a related lawsuit in September 2010 against Maricopa County under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, seeking to compel the Sheriff's Office to provide the requested information. See <a href="http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12019">PN-AZ-0002 in this Clearinghouse</a>). Maricopa County settled that lawsuit in June 2011, and agreed to cooperate. (Also, prior to this case, in 2007, a group of plaintiffs had filed a lawsuit, Melendres v. Arpaio, against the County of Maricopa, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, and Sheriff Joe Arpaio. (<a href="https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12282">PN-AZ-0003 in this Clearinghouse</a>). In 2013, the Melendres Court found the MCSO in violation of the Constitution, and entered a permanent injunction forbidding racial profiling.) In this matter, DOJ released its findings letter reporting the results of the investigation on December 15, 2011. The letter reported that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) was engaged in an unconstitutional pattern of policing. The DOJ found that the MSCO profiled Latinos, and unlawfully stoped, detained, and arrested Latinos. The DOJ also found that services in the Maricopa County Jail for people of limited English proficiency were insufficient or nonexistent. The DOJ found that a lack of policy to ensure constitutional policing underscored these problems. On May 10, 2012, the DOJ filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 14141 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against Maricopa County and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. Specifically, the DOJ's complaint alleged that: <ul><li>(1) the MSCO's policies and practices discriminated against Latino persons;<li>(2) the MSCO targeted Latino workers while enforcing state identity theft laws, resulting in the seizure of Latinos at worksites without reasonable suspicion;<li>(3) the MSCO's discriminatory law enforcements practices violated Title VI;<li>(4) the County's jails discriminated against limited English proficiency Latino prisoners in violation of Title VI; <li>(5) the County and MSCO were violating their Title VI contractual assurances; and <li>(6) the County and MSCO retaliated against persons in Maricopa County on the basis of their protected speech.</li></ul> The DOJ requested injunctive and declaratory relief to stop Maricopa County's alleged practice of depriving Latino persons of their constitutional rights and to stop discrimination against Latinos in violation of Title VI. The case was assigned to Chief Judge Roslyn O. Silver. On December 12, 2012, she denied Defendants' motion to dismiss the case, but granted the motion to dismiss the MCSO from the case, ruling the MCSO was not an entity that could sue or be sued. On September 4, 2014, after lengthy discovery, proceedings were held before Judge Silver in which both parties informed the court that they would file dispositive motions. On October 27, the DOJ filed its motion for summary judgment, arguing that the Defendants were precluded by collateral estoppel from re-litigating the issue of whether the MSCO's traffic stops constituted a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The DOJ claimed that the issue had already been decided against the MSCO in <i>Melendres v. Arpaio</i>, where the MCSO was a defendant. 989 F. Supp. 2d 822 (D. Ariz. 2013) (<a href="http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12282">PN-AZ-0003 in this Clearinghouse</a>). On the same day, the Defendants made a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing that neither Title VI nor § 14141 authorized this suit against Maricopa County. On June 15, 2015, Judge Silver granted the DOJ's motion with respect to the traffic stops and denied the Defendants' motion. On July 15, 2015, Judge Silver ordered the parties to file a joint statement setting forth what issues remained for trial. In response, on July 17, the parties filed a joint motion to approve a settlement agreement regarding the second, fourth, and sixth claims for relief from the DOJ's complaint. The MSCO agreed to stop unconstitutionally enforcing state identity theft laws and to develop an anti-retaliation policy. On July 20, the DOJ moved to stay this action until the court in <i>Melendres</i> (<a href="http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12282">PN-AZ-0003 in this Clearinghouse</a>), in which the DOJ had recently intervened, found that the Defendants had maintained compliance with an injunction for three years. However, the Defendants argued this was inappropriate because when the DOJ moved to intervene in <i>Melendres</i>, it had represented that it would terminate the overlapping parts of this case if the intervention motion was granted. On September 2, 2015, Judge Silver granted the parties' joint motion to approve the settlement agreement with respect to the issues not covered by <i>Melendres</i>--worksite operations and retaliation--but otherwise dismissed the matter. On December 30, 2015, Maricopa County appealed this case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Over the next two years, little happened in the case as the parties awaited a decision from the appellate court. On May 7, 2018, the Court issued an opinion affirming the judgment. Judge Paul J. Watford held that sheriffs act as final policymakers for their respective counties on law-enforcement matters. Moreover, U.S.C. §12601 imposed liability on a governmental authority whose own official policy caused it to engage in “a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers” that deprived persons of federally protected rights. Because sheriffs are final policymakers for their counties, the policies they adopt are, in fact, the counties' policies. For this reason, Maricopa County should be held liable for their sheriffs' acts. On June 21, 2018, Maricopa County filed a petition for panel rehearing and a petition for rehearing <i>en banc</i>, but the request was denied. On October 15, 2018, Maricopa County filed a petition for a <i>writ of certiorari</i> in the United States Supreme Court. Certiorari was denied on March 25, 2019. 139 S.Ct. 1373. The parties jointly moved to terminate the settlement on May 9, 2019. The court ordered this termination on May 14, and the case has since been closed.
summary: As a result of an investigation conducted by the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice in 2009, the DOJ filed this lawsuit against Maricopa County, Arizona for a pattern of unconstitutional action as well as discrimination against Latinos. The district court granted summary judgment with respect to some of the DOJ's claims in June 2015. In July 2015, the parties settled some of the remaining claims, and the court entered judgment in favor of the DOJ for the remaining claims, with the understanding that the DOJ would pursue further relief in <i>Melendres v. Arpaio</i>. Maricopa Couty appealed arguing it could not be held liable for its sheriffs' acts, but the Court affirmed the judgement on May 7, 2018. Maricopa Couty is now seeking for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court.