Trump's long interest in Arpaio's case is a bad sign for his regard for rule of law

President Donald Trump pardoned former Arizona sheriff and anti-immigration figurehead Joe Arpaio, who stood to face jail time after being convicted in July of being in contempt of court for continuing to engage in aggressive anti-immigration enforcement after a 2011 court order demanded he stop the practice. The pardon, issued late on on Friday night, was widely seen as a concession to the immigration hardliners who comprised Trump’s early base — as well as a remarkably tone-deaf decision in the wake of the violence of Charlottesville.

But according to reports by The Washington Post’s Philip Rucker and Ellen Nakashima and The New York Times’ Maggie Haberman, Trump’s interest in pardoning Arpaio dates back several months. According to several unnamed administration officials familiar with the case, Trump asked both attorney general Jeff Sessions and White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II whether he had any legal avenue to help Arpaio, who had at that point been charged but not yet convicted. Sessions and McGahn both informed Trump that he could not wipe away the charges prior to conviction, but reassured him that he had a wide remit to grant pardons at his pleasure. Arpaio was convicted in July.

In a statement quoted by The Times, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said: “It’s only natural the president would have a discussion with administration lawyers about legal matters. This case would be no different.”

Trump’s decision to pardon Arpaio has come under fire from legal scholars, who point out that Trump is, essentially, allowing a government official to defy Constitutional rights with impunity.

Yet Trump’s decision should hardly be seen as surprising. Rather, it reflects his priorities: rewarding those he sees as loyal and punishing those like special prosecutor on the Russia investigation Robert Mueller, whom Trump has reportedly looked into firing. When judicial norms — or the rule of law — threaten to limit Trump’s actions, they can be safely disregarded. As Slate’s Michael Joseph Stern writes:

Arpaio’s conviction was a test for how long and how willing Trump will be to abide judicial oversight. He flunked it. It now seems clear that many future beneficiaries of the president’s clemency will be his political allies—and that he might not wait to for them to be convicted or sentenced before issuing a pardon. Trump, in other words, may use his pardon power to stymie Robert Mueller’s investigation, as well as other inquiries into the past misdeeds of his associates.

How the Russia investigation plays out remains to be seen. But Trump’s pardon of Arpaio is a troubling test case for Trump’s values.

Will you support Vox’s explanatory journalism?

Most news outlets make their money through advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what we’re trying to do at Vox, there are a couple of big issues with relying on ads and subscriptions to keep the lights on:

First, advertising dollars go up and down with the economy. We often only know a few months out what our advertising revenue will be, which makes it hard to plan ahead.

Second, we’re not in the subscriptions business. Vox is here to help everyone understand the complex issues shaping the world — not just the people who can afford to pay for a subscription. We believe that’s an important part of building a more equal society. And we can’t do that if we have a paywall.

So even though advertising is still our biggest source of revenue, we also seek grants and reader support. (And no matter how our work is funded, we have strict guidelines on editorial independence.)

If you also believe that everyone deserves access to trusted high-quality information, will you make a gift to Vox today? Any amount helps.

One-Time Monthly Annual

$5/month

$10/month

$25/month

$50/month

Other

$

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via