The Department of Justice (DOJ) will not ask the Supreme Court to halt the appointment of a special prosecutor to fight former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio's effort to clear his guilty verdict, the department said in a court filing Wednesday.

Arpaio was fighting to erase the verdict a judge issued him on contempt of court charges last year.

Solicitor General Noel Francisco made the determination on Tuesday, according to a DOJ filing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

New: The Justice Department will *not* petition SCOTUS to challenge the appointment of a special prosecutor to defend a judge's decision to leave the guilty verdict against Joe Arpaio on the record following his presidential pardon (DOJ declined to defend the judge's order) pic.twitter.com/oPNYPNzl15 — Zoe Tillman (@ZoeTillman) January 2, 2019

Despite the DOJ's decision not to challenge the appointment in front of the Supreme Court, a lawyer for Arpaio told Politico on Wednesday that Arpaio’s own legal team is mounting a case to bring to the Supreme Court.

“The issue is can the prosecutor in a criminal case be replaced by the court, replaced by a judge, when apparently the court doesn’t like what the prosecutor is doing in it. It does have very far reaching implications," Arpaio's lawyer, Jack Wilenchik, told the outlet.

President Trump Donald John TrumpBarr criticizes DOJ in speech declaring all agency power 'is invested in the attorney general' Military leaders asked about using heat ray on protesters outside White House: report Powell warns failure to reach COVID-19 deal could 'scar and damage' economy MORE pardoned Arpaio, a former Maricopa County sheriff, in 2017 after he was convicted of criminal contempt for not following a judge's order to stop round-ups of people he suspected were in the U.S. illegally.

ADVERTISEMENT

Arpaio is unlikely to face jail time but is seeking to formally have the guilty verdict dismissed.

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton ruled in October 2017 that even though Arpaio is pardoned, his conviction shouldn't be thrown away.

"The pardon undoubtedly spared Defendant from any punishment that might otherwise have been imposed. It did not, however, 'revise the historical facts' of this case," Bolton wrote at the time.

The 9th Circuit said in April that it would appoint a special prosecutor to defend that ruling.