I don’t know, it might make an interesting test case to see how far the presidential pardon goes. Arpaio violated an injunction against continued unconstitutional detentions. IF a president can give pardons for that, it means that constitutional rights are essentially unenforceable, if government actors can violate them with no repercussions.
Just a thought, I have no idea if the ACLU or anybody else has this teed up…
Edited to add: I see there is an article up at NYT about this very subject.
