Screen Shot 2014-12-23 at 8.36.55 AMFor many state sheriffs’ offices along the southern border, Obama’s executive action on illegal immigration will have harsh effects on how they conduct the handling of amnestied immigrants.

None are more affected than Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Arpaio has spent years challenging Obama on issues of immigration. And the recent ruling has put Arpaio directly in harm’s way.

That’s why the famous sheriff from Maricopa County, AZ, has sued the Obama administration, citing the unconstitutional nature of the order.

Arpaio filed the suit accusing the President of using power that overrode congress, thereby overstating the power he has as provided by the constitution.

Represented in Washington D.C. by Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch, Arpaio argued that Obama’s executive action is particularly problematic because it violates the separation of powers clause.

Klayman argued before U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, “This is not a question about immigration enforcement. It’s a question about the Constitution. It’s a question about whether the president can override Congress.”

Another argument that Klayman brought before judge Howell was that the failure to deport immigrants also posed a threat to the safety and well-being of Arpaio. Arpaio has been one of the more outspoken critics of the Obama administration. Because he’s maintained such a hardline stance on immigration, Arpaio has made many enemies in the immigrant community.

Klayman suggested that this legislation puts people like Arpaio at increased risk for “bodily harm or death” with more immigrants on the street.

Not to mention the increased number of immigrants also serves to burden the taxpayers of Maricopa County. As Klayman suggested, more than a third of the immigrants who are released from prison (as opposed to being deported) end up right back in jail.

The unnecessary costs have burdened taxpayers, wasted thousands of dollars and pushed the sheriff’s office to nearly reach the end of their operational budget.

Klayman made it a point to show how Obama’s move was out of his depth when he authorized amnesty for five million.

“By his own admission 22 times in the past, Obama lacks the power to take this unconstitutional executive action,” Klayman argued. “To allow this to stand would amount to trashing our constitutional republic and set a bad precedent for future presidents. I am hopeful that the court will grant us the preliminary injunction, in order that the status quo of our current law can remain in effect, and allow the next Congress the right to enact any new legislation that can help solve our border and illegal immigration problems.”

Howell has already issued a ruling in Arpaio’s favor before as he ordered a fast-track for case arguments and hearings.

Arpaio joins a growing body of individuals and organizations who have filed suits against the Obama administration.

Seventeen states have already filed suits against the President arguing Obama was “abdicating his responsibility” to enforce immigration laws.

Arpaio remains hopeful that constitution will win out over the hubris of the “king” of America.