951 F.3d 1001
9th Cir.2020Background
- Joseph Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff, was preliminarily and permanently enjoined (2011, 2013) from detaining persons based solely on suspected unlawful presence; Judge Snow later found Arpaio intentionally violated the injunction.
- Arpaio was referred for criminal contempt; after a five-day bench trial in 2017 Judge Bolton issued findings concluding Arpaio guilty of criminal contempt.
- Sentencing was scheduled, but before sentence was pronounced President Trump issued a full, unconditional pardon.
- The district court dismissed the criminal case with prejudice based on the pardon but denied Arpaio’s motion to vacate the guilty verdict.
- DOJ declined to defend the district court’s denial of vacatur; a special prosecutor was appointed. Arpaio appealed only the denial of vacatur; his challenges to the merits were held moot.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding Munsingwear vacatur does not apply because the verdict can have no future preclusive or sentencing effect absent a final judgment of conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Munsingwear vacatur is required where a presidential pardon moots post-verdict review | Arpaio: Pardon moots sentencing and appeal, so the guilty verdict must be vacated under Munsingwear to avoid an unreviewable adverse adjudication | Government: Vacatur unnecessary because the verdict will have no future legal/preclusive effects after dismissal with prejudice and pardon | Vacatur under Munsingwear not required because the verdict cannot produce preclusive or sentencing consequences without a final judgment of conviction |
| Whether this court has jurisdiction to review the district court’s factual findings absent a final judgment of conviction | Arpaio: Court may review denial of vacatur and underlying errors in the verdict | Government: No jurisdiction to review merits because there is no final judgment of conviction and the merits are moot | Appellate review of the merits is moot; appealable only as to final order denying vacatur (district court’s denial is final and reviewable) |
| Whether the guilty finding can have issue- or claim-preclusive effect or produce sentence enhancements in future proceedings | Arpaio: The verdict could have collateral consequences; vacatur needed to avoid preclusion | Government: No final judgment of conviction (no sentence), dismissal with prejudice prevents preclusive effect and sentencing enhancement; double jeopardy bars reprosecution | The verdict cannot have preclusive effect or produce enhancements because there was no final judgment of conviction; preclusion requirements unmet |
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying equitable vacatur | Arpaio: Denial was legal error under Munsingwear and an abuse of discretion | Government: Denial was proper because Munsingwear’s purpose (preventing unreviewable adverse effects) is not implicated here | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950) (dictum articulating vacatur practice for cases mooted on appeal)
- Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692 (2011) (explaining Munsingwear’s purpose to avoid unreviewable, preclusive adjudications)
- B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 575 U.S. 138 (2015) (requirements for issue preclusion: actually litigated and decided by a valid, final judgment)
- Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211 (1937) (sentence constitutes the criminal judgment)
- Bobby v. Bies, 556 U.S. 825 (2009) (a determination is necessary for preclusion only when the final outcome hinges on it)
- Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377 (1975) (jeopardy attaches when the court begins receiving evidence)
- Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497 (2001) (preclusive effect of federal judgments governed by federal law)