Interpretations of Interposition: Constitutional Sheriff Ideology and Practice

Abstract

Constitutional sheriffs are a self-described group of right-wing sheriffs that believe and act as though the elected county sheriff is the highest authority of the law within their jurisdiction, with the power to deem federal and state laws unconstitutional and therefore refuse to enforce them. These sheriffs justify their actions through the theory of interposition, which they define as the responsibility to stand between the federal government and citizens in their counties in order to protect the latter from the former’s attempts to overstep its power. Advancing our understanding of the spread and impact of constitutional sheriffs will contribute to broader conversations regarding policing and law enforcement practices. The wide variety of sheriff responsibilities, ranging from jail operations to arrests, give sheriffs multiple avenues to put their right-wing ideology into practice. This project contributes to studies of federalism and right-wing extremist movements. Constitutional sheriffs invert traditional understandings of federalism by claiming that they are the ultimate arbitrators of the constitutionality of laws and are responsible for protecting constituents from the supposed tyranny of the federal, and as of late, state governments. This belief is shaped by right-wing extremist ideology present in the United States. In this presentation, I will explore the ideologies of constitutional sheriffs, especially their interpretations of constitutionality and interposition.