In 2012, Janet Napolitano, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, released a memo outlining a policy which became known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The policy directed relevant agencies to defer the removal of illegal aliens who were eligible for the DACA. In 2014, Napolitano's successor, Jeh Johnson, revised the DACA program to extend the duration of deferred removal and outlined a new policy known as DAPA that enabled eligible parents of American citizens to be deferred from removal.
On November 2014, President Obama announced the changes to DACA and the new DAPA. That very day, Joseph Arpaio, the elected sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, sued Obama and other federal officials to enjoin the deferred action policies. Arpaio asserted that DACA and DAPA were unconstitutional, arbitrary and capricious, and invalid under the Administrative Procedures Act. For the court to review the claim, Arpaio must have Article III standing.
Sheriff Arpaio argues that he has standing because the deferred action policy will act as a magnet and draw more undocumented aliens into Maricopa County, where they will commit crimes, and deferred action policies will decrease the total deportations of six million eligible undocumented aliens so that more individuals will be present in Maricopa County and commit crimes. Arpaio's argument is based on the premise that more people causing more crimes will harm him because he will be forced to spend more money policing the county and running its jails.
The judge ruled against Arpaio, reasoning that he had failed to establish the three elements of standing.
What are the three elements of standing? Based on the three elements, why did the judges rule against Sheriff Arpaio? Give a reason for each element.
[Joseph M. Arpaio v. Barack Obama, 2015 U.S. App., LEXIS 14270.]