And nowhere in the Constitution does it give an “inferior” court the authority to hear a “case” involving a “State”. Since the inferior court is acting without constitutional authority, so should the State.
Article 3. section 2
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.
Why is it so hard for people to understand this when it is written in Plain English?? Just because the court refuses to abide by what is written in the Constitution, does not mean a State has to go along with it. Force the Issue.
The problem with your premise here is that Arpaio is not technically acting on behalf of the state itself. As a county level official, Arpaio does get his authority as sheriff from Arizona statutes and/or the Arizona Constitution. However, he is technically not a “state” level official nor a state level actor. Therefore, his lawsuit does not technically fit the bill to be classified as original jurisdiction for the SCOTUS.