United States v. County of Maricopa
889 F.3d 648
9th Cir.
2018

Background

  • The United States sued Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO), and Maricopa County under Title VI and 34 U.S.C. § 12601, alleging racially discriminatory, pretextual traffic‑stop policies targeting Latinos.
  • In a parallel class action (Melendres), plaintiffs sued under § 1983 and obtained a judgment finding Arpaio’s traffic‑stop policies unlawful; that judgment was affirmed on appeal.
  • MCSO was dismissed as a non‑jural entity; the County initially sought dismissal too, arguing Arpaio was not the County’s policymaker and that Title VI/§ 12601 do not permit local‑government policymaker liability.
  • The district court granted summary judgment to the United States on claims tied to the traffic‑stop policies, holding Maricopa County bound by the Melendres findings under issue preclusion and liable because Arpaio acted as the County’s final policymaker.
  • On appeal, Maricopa County argued (1) Arpaio lacked final policymaking authority for the County, (2) Title VI and § 12601 do not permit policymaker liability, and (3) the County is not bound by Melendres.
  • The Ninth Circuit affirmed: it found Arpaio was a final county policymaker on law‑enforcement matters, that Title VI and § 12601 permit liability for official‑policy misconduct using the § 1983/policymaker framework, and that issue preclusion bound the County to Melendres.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether Arpaio acted as Maricopa County’s final policymaker for law‑enforcement matters Arpaio’s duties and county responsibilities (constitutional and statutory designations, fiscal control, and precedent) make his law‑enforcement acts county policy Arpaio, as an independently elected sheriff, set policy only for his office or the State, not the County Arpaio was a final policymaker for county law‑enforcement matters under Arizona law and controlling precedent; County liable for his policies
Whether Title VI and 34 U.S.C. § 12601 permit local‑government liability for policymakers’ actions Both statutes should impose liability where the governmental authority’s own official policy causes discrimination or a pattern/practice of rights deprivations, so § 1983 policymaker principles apply County argued those statutes do not authorize municipal/policymaker liability (or that a different standard should apply) Title VI and § 12601 allow liability for official‑policy misconduct; the § 1983/policymaker standard governs which officials can establish entity policy
Whether Maricopa County is bound by the Melendres findings (issue preclusion) United States: County was originally a named defendant, agreed to be rejoined if needed, and effectively delegated defense to Arpaio/MCSO; therefore preclusion applies County: contended it was not a party to Melendres and thus not bound by those findings Offensive non‑mutual issue preclusion applies: County was effectively a party and agreed to be bound, so it cannot relitigate the traffic‑stop issues

Key Cases Cited

  • Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires official policy, not respondeat superior)
  • McMillian v. Monroe County, 520 U.S. 781 (identifying when sheriffs act as county policymakers)
  • Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (official acts by final policymakers can be municipal policy)
  • Davis ex rel. LaShonda D. v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (entity liability under Title IX parallels § 1983 principles; deliberate indifference standard)
  • Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (entity liability for official policy under Title IX)
  • Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990 (9th Cir.) (initial appellate decision in Melendres litigation)
  • Melendres v. Arpaio, 784 F.3d 1254 (9th Cir.) (appellate decision addressing party composition and remedies)
  • Melendres v. Maricopa County, 815 F.3d 645 (9th Cir.) (later panel opinion confirming policymaker analysis and procedural posture)
  • Flanders v. Maricopa County, 54 P.3d 837 (Ariz. Ct. App.) (Arizona decision finding Arpaio had final policymaking authority over jail administration)
  • Braillard v. Maricopa County, 232 P.3d 1263 (Ariz. Ct. App.) (holding MCSO is non‑jural and cannot be sued in its own name)
  • Goldstein v. City of Long Beach, 715 F.3d 750 (9th Cir.) (county financial responsibility as evidence of county control)
  • Syverson v. IBM, 472 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir.) (elements of issue preclusion)
  • Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (preclusion exceptions for non‑party preclusion and when an entity agreed to be bound)
Read the full case