A federal judge on Monday appeared deeply skeptical of an Arizona sheriff's lawsuit seeking to halt President Barack Obama's plan to spare nearly 5 million people from deportation until after the end of his administration. U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, herself nominated to the federal bench by Obama in 2010, questioned whether Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio had legal standing to challenge the immigration program the president announced last month. She suggested the topic is better left for Congress and the Obama administration to sort out. But Arpaio's lawyer, Larry Klayman, told reporters outside the courtroom that 'we have serious issues of constitutionality involved.' In the first courtroom battle over Obama's plan, Klayman said the president violated the U.S. Constitution by doing an end-run around Congress. SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEOS . Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio, seen in 2013, is an outspoken opponent of Obama's immigration policy; his county is near the U.S.-Mexico border . President Obama, whose landmark immigration policy decree is under fire, arrived Friday in Hawaii for an extended family holiday vacation . He argued that the program would let more illegal immigrants enter the country and commit crimes, burdening law enforcement – Arpaio's area of concern. 'It's not policy, he's creating law and he cannot do that under the U.S. Constitution,' Klayman said of Obama. Arpaio has often clashed with the federal government over the enforcement of immigration laws and he has filed suit to stop new policies announced by Obama. He claims that more than 35 percent of immigrants living in Maricopa County illegally who wound up in his jails this year were repeat offenders, buttressing his view that federal officials have done a poor job of deporting criminals. But Justice Department lawyer Kathleen Hartnett said Arpaio's lawsuit seemed to be raising a 'political dispute' rather than a legal claim the court could address. The Obama administration has called the case 'speculative and unsubstantiated' and has urged the court to dismiss it. Howell at times seemed exasperated with Klayman, a longtime conservative activist who has filed hundreds of lawsuits against the federal government, including challenges to Obama's U.S. citizenship. When Klayman said his client has been threatened because of his tough views on Obama's immigration policy, Howell responded: 'That just doesn't cut it for me.' Howell also said it did not appear that Arpaio could show a 'concrete' injury he has suffered from the new policy, especially since it will take months before the bulk of it actually goes into effect. 'If Congress doesn't like it, doesn't Congress have the power to step in?' she asked. Howell said she would issue a ruling in the case soon. Obama's plan, derided by conservatives as an 'amnesty' for millions of lawbreakers, marks the most sweeping change to the nation's immigration policies in nearly three decades and set off a fierce fight on Capitol Hill. The changes include work permits and three-year deportation stays for more than 4 million immigrants here illegally. It mostly applies to those who have been in the country more than five years and have children who are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. Judge Beryl A. Howell, nominated by Barack Obama, is hearing a case focused on claims that the president has violated the Constitution by doing an end run around Congress and that drastic changes in immigration programs should be stopped . Under the program, the Department of Homeland Security would prioritize the removal of immigrants who present threats to national security, public safety or border security. DHS officials could deport someone if an Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office director determined that removing the person would serve an important federal interest. The White House has insisted that Obama is acting under proper legal authority to enforce the nation's immigration laws. Arpaio has suffered a series of stinging political defeats in his quest to slow the flow of illegal immigrants into his Arizona county. Just last week he agreed to give up a major part of his efforts that won him popularity among voters but gradually were dismantled by the Obama administration and the courts. Arpaio's office said Dec. 17 that it would disband a controversial squad that has raided businesses to arrest more than 700 immigrants who were charged with using fake or stolen IDs to get jobs. Larry Klayman of the conservative nonprofit Freedom Watch is representing the Maricopa County, Arizona sheriff's office in the lawsuit, and filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to stop Obama from granting legal status to approximately 4.7 illegal aliens in the United States . After complaints from the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups that charged he was engaging in racial profiling – most illegal immigrants in Arizona are Hispanic – his office was found to have done so at least in some traffic stops. As a result the federal government had stripped him of special federal immigration powers and investigated him for alleged civil rights violations. Arpaio, however, remains popular in Arizona, where voters have elected him six times. He is best known for operating a series of outdoor 'tent city' jails where male inmates are limited to wearing pink underwear, those over age 18 are required to registered for the Selective Service military draft. In 2007 he launched an in-house jail radio station that broadcasts patriotic songs, Frank Sinatra tunes, educational shows and classical music 20 hours each week.
America's 'toughest sheriff' wants to force Washington to stop the flow of illegal-immigrants criminals into his southern Arizona county .
Sheriff Joe Arpaio aims to stop new Obama executive actions that will guarantee millions of immigration lawbreakers a free pass from deportation .
A federal judge is skeptical that the sheriff has 'standing' to sue since his law enforcement agency hasn't yet seen the effects of the new policy .
The judge, Beryll Howell, was appointed by Obama in 2010 .
Lawsuit hopes to prove the White House did an end-run around Congress and seized lawmaking power that belongs to federal legislators .
A federal judge on Monday appeared deeply skeptical of an Arizona sheriff's lawsuit seeking to halt President Barack Obama's plan to spare nearly 5 million people from deportation until after the end of his administration. U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, herself nominated to the federal bench by Obama in 2010, questioned whether Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio had legal standing to challenge the immigration program the president announced last month. She suggested the topic is better left for Congress and the Obama administration to sort out. But Arpaio's lawyer, Larry Klayman, told reporters outside the courtroom that 'we have serious issues of constitutionality involved.' In the first courtroom battle over Obama's plan, Klayman said the president violated the U.S. Constitution by doing an end-run around Congress. SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEOS . Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio, seen in 2013, is an outspoken opponent of Obama's immigration policy; his county is near the U.S.-Mexico border . President Obama, whose landmark immigration policy decree is under fire, arrived Friday in Hawaii for an extended family holiday vacation . He argued that the program would let more illegal immigrants enter the country and commit crimes, burdening law enforcement – Arpaio's area of concern. 'It's not policy, he's creating law and he cannot do that under the U.S. Constitution,' Klayman said of Obama. Arpaio has often clashed with the federal government over the enforcement of immigration laws and he has filed suit to stop new policies announced by Obama. He claims that more than 35 percent of immigrants living in Maricopa County illegally who wound up in his jails this year were repeat offenders, buttressing his view that federal officials have done a poor job of deporting criminals. But Justice Department lawyer Kathleen Hartnett said Arpaio's lawsuit seemed to be raising a 'political dispute' rather than a legal claim the court could address. The Obama administration has called the case 'speculative and unsubstantiated' and has urged the court to dismiss it. Howell at times seemed exasperated with Klayman, a longtime conservative activist who has filed hundreds of lawsuits against the federal government, including challenges to Obama's U.S. citizenship. When Klayman said his client has been threatened because of his tough views on Obama's immigration policy, Howell responded: 'That just doesn't cut it for me.' Howell also said it did not appear that Arpaio could show a 'concrete' injury he has suffered from the new policy, especially since it will take months before the bulk of it actually goes into effect. 'If Congress doesn't like it, doesn't Congress have the power to step in?' she asked. Howell said she would issue a ruling in the case soon. Obama's plan, derided by conservatives as an 'amnesty' for millions of lawbreakers, marks the most sweeping change to the nation's immigration policies in nearly three decades and set off a fierce fight on Capitol Hill. The changes include work permits and three-year deportation stays for more than 4 million immigrants here illegally. It mostly applies to those who have been in the country more than five years and have children who are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. Judge Beryl A. Howell, nominated by Barack Obama, is hearing a case focused on claims that the president has violated the Constitution by doing an end run around Congress and that drastic changes in immigration programs should be stopped . Under the program, the Department of Homeland Security would prioritize the removal of immigrants who present threats to national security, public safety or border security. DHS officials could deport someone if an Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office director determined that removing the person would serve an important federal interest. The White House has insisted that Obama is acting under proper legal authority to enforce the nation's immigration laws. Arpaio has suffered a series of stinging political defeats in his quest to slow the flow of illegal immigrants into his Arizona county. Just last week he agreed to give up a major part of his efforts that won him popularity among voters but gradually were dismantled by the Obama administration and the courts. Arpaio's office said Dec. 17 that it would disband a controversial squad that has raided businesses to arrest more than 700 immigrants who were charged with using fake or stolen IDs to get jobs. Larry Klayman of the conservative nonprofit Freedom Watch is representing the Maricopa County, Arizona sheriff's office in the lawsuit, and filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to stop Obama from granting legal status to approximately 4.7 illegal aliens in the United States . After complaints from the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups that charged he was engaging in racial profiling – most illegal immigrants in Arizona are Hispanic – his office was found to have done so at least in some traffic stops. As a result the federal government had stripped him of special federal immigration powers and investigated him for alleged civil rights violations. Arpaio, however, remains popular in Arizona, where voters have elected him six times. He is best known for operating a series of outdoor 'tent city' jails where male inmates are limited to wearing pink underwear, those over age 18 are required to registered for the Selective Service military draft. In 2007 he launched an in-house jail radio station that broadcasts patriotic songs, Frank Sinatra tunes, educational shows and classical music 20 hours each week.
A federal judge on Monday appeared deeply the federal bench by Obama in 2010, questioned whether Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio had legal standing to challenge the immigration by doing an end-run around Congress. SCROLL DOWN Obama's immigration policy; his county is near government over the enforcement of immigration laws and he has filed suit to stop new policies suffered from the new policy, especially since it hearing a case focused on claims that the an important federal interest. The White House the flow of illegal immigrants into his Arizona