San Mateo County Sheriff Christina Corpus urged a federal judge in San Francisco on Thursday to halt her potential removal from office on corruption accusations, describing the county’s process as unconstitutional. The judge appeared hesitant to step in and did not immediately rule.

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria questioned whether a federal court should interfere in a local process approved by voters. He said the issuance of a preliminary injunction would be “an extraordinary step” and that courts are “supposed to be reluctant to do so.”

Chhabria noted that San Mateo County voters approved an amendment to the county charter in March to allow the Board of Supervisors, a duly elected body, to remove an elected sheriff. He expressed hesitation to disrupt an “ongoing county process.”

Corpus, the county’s first Latina sheriff, faces two removal efforts: one by the Board of Supervisors and another through a civil grand jury accusation filed in San Mateo County Superior Court in June. She has denied any wrongdoing and has refused to resign.

In federal court filings, Corpus, who was elected in 2022, argued the removal procedures violate her due process rights. She accused Supervisors Noelia Corzo and Ray Mueller of making public statements that prejudged her guilt and called for her removal. She also contended the rules are vague, improperly shift the burden of proof to her, and give the board excessive control over selecting a hearing officer — including the ability to disregard the officer’s findings.

Corpus’ lawyers also argue the process is an unconstitutional retroactive punishment. They say Measure A — which allowed for her potential removal — was enacted after Corpus took office in 2023 and the U.S. Constitution prohibits such actions.

Her attorney, Wilson Leung of Murphy Pearson Bradley & Feeney, told the court the process “violated basic notions of due process.” After the hearing, he told this news organization, “We were very confident in our arguments,” but acknowledged uncertainty about how Chhabria would rule.

Attorneys for the county, Andrew Dawson, Franco Muzzio and Jan Little, countered that the request for an injunction is premature as administrative remedies have not yet been exhausted. They said the procedures comply with due process and denied Corzo and Mueller were biased.

According to court records tied to Corpus’ injunction request, she had previously sought relief in local courts, but her lawyers said there had been “little progress.” One judge recused himself, another deemed the claims unripe and reassigned the case, and on June 27, Superior Court Judge Dalia Shapirshteyn dismissed the claims for lack of administrative exhaustion — “without seeing or hearing the parties in court,” according to her legal team’s filing.

While Chhabria signaled reluctance to halt the process now, he acknowledged the possibility of legal defects in the removal proceedings. He said Corpus could return to federal court if she is ousted and indicated he would make himself available to hear her case, and could then possibly reinstate her and award back pay and damages if the termination is later found unlawful.

Chhabria said he would rule on the motion for an injunction Thursday, but no decision had been posted on the court’s online docket as of press time.

“Having previously raised these same arguments before two Superior Court judges without success, the sheriff is now seeking federal court intervention to halt the voter-approved Measure A removal process,” county spokesperson Effie Milionis Verducci said in a statement. “The county remains committed to defending the integrity of this lawful process and we look forward to receiving the judge’s decision.”

A removal hearing scheduled for Aug. 18–29 follows the Board of Supervisors’ June vote to remove Corpus from office under Measure A. It followed a pre-removal hearing. Corpus then filed an appeal, triggering formal removal proceedings presided over by retired San Mateo County Judge James Emerson. The hearing is expected to be public after Corpus withdrew an earlier request to keep it private.

Allegations of workplace misconduct and abuse of power were first raised by two sheriff’s unions last year, prompting a more than 400-page investigation by retired Santa Clara County Judge LaDoris Cordell. The report intensified calls for Corpus’ removal and helped spur the Measure A campaign.

A separate county-commissioned report by the San Francisco law firm Keker, Van Nest & Peters was made public in July in a court filing and echoed many of Cordell’s findings.

Corpus issued her rebuttal to the Cordell report in April, authored by former Riverside County Superior Court Judge Burke Strunsky, who criticized Cordell’s reliance on anonymous sources and unrecorded interviews.