Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
In Re Joseph M. Arpaio
Paid petition
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Question presented
Where the Department of Justice has appeared in a criminal appeal on behalf of the United States, and indicated that it intends to represent the United States’ interests on appeal, can the Ninth Circuit appoint a “special prosecutor” to replace the Department of Justice as prosecutors for the United States, simply because the Department intends to argue that the lower court erred? By appointing a special prosecutor to supplant the Department of Justice, on the sole grounds that the Department of Justice concedes error by the lower court, does the Court violate the separation of powers, as well as due process, by actively participating in the prosecution? Do federal courts have any power to appoint prosecutors to a case that the Department of Justice can legally and ethically handle, whether or not the Department actually chooses to prosecute the case? (Should Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A. be clarified or overruled?)
Counsel of record
For petitioner
John Douglas Wilenchik
Wilenchik & Bartness, P.C.
For respondent
Noel John Francisco
Jones Day
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference
Amicus briefs
1 cert-stage
Proceedings
- Apr 29 2019Petition DENIED.
- Apr 10 2019DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/26/2019.
- Apr 08 2019Reply of petitioner Joseph M. Arpaio filed.
- Mar 27 2019Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
- Mar 27 2019Brief amicus curiae of Christopher G. Caldwell in support of respondent filed.
- Feb 25 2019Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 27, 2019.
- Feb 22 2019Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 25, 2019 to March 27, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
- Jan 16 2019Petition for a writ of mandamus filed. (Response due February 25, 2019)