Backlash grows against police in Nancy Guthrie case after suspension revelation
Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos has headed the investigation into Nancy Guthrie's disappearance from her Arizona home since day one
Backlash has been steadily building against the lead investigator in the case of Nancy Guthrie's disappearance on February 1, with Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos coming under fire for past disciplinary issues as the investigation approaches its 12th week.
The sheriff's history at the El Paso Police Department in Texas has drawn criticism as he resigned from his position in 1982 in order to avoid disciplinary action. He addressed the allegations that he misrepresented himself when applying for a job at the Pima County Police Department in the '80s, after leaving his job in Texas.
Chris' lawyer responded to the probe into his past with a 22-page document that explained his conduct. "Sheriff Nanos resigned from the El Paso Police Department in 1982. At the time of his resignation, he held the rank of corporal," the document read.
© Getty Images
Sheriff Chris Nanos has come under fire in recent weeks
"His resignation came in the wake of a dispute with a supervisor over the towing of vehicles. The supervisor wanted to impose a three-day suspension for insubordination. Sheriff Nanos appealed that recommended discipline to the Chief, who found in favor of the supervisor."
"Rather than accept a three-day suspension, Sheriff Nanos offered to resign in lieu of discipline. The Chief accepted his offer, and Sheriff Nanos resigned," he continued. The document added that he had not lied about his employment history, and wrote on his resume that he left the job in 1982, despite the Pima County Sheriff's Department website stating that he left in 1984.
Chris' lawyer also acknowledged the disciplinary actions he was subject to at El Paso, including "counselling, reprimands and suspensions". The letter then spoke on the sheriff's previous statement under oath that he had never been suspended as a result of disciplinary action.
© Getty Images
The sheriff has lead the Nancy Guthrie investigation since day one
"It is 100% correct that Sheriff Nanos was never suspended during his four decades of decorated and faithful service with the Pima County Sheriff's Department," his lawyer wrote to the Pima County Board of Supervisors.
"However, Sheriff Nanos was suspended more than forty years ago while employed by [the] El Paso Police Department. In the context of his live deposition, Sheriff Nanos did not understand the question related to discipline with a different agency not governed by the Arizona Peace Officers' Bill of Rights."
Social media users quickly shared their distaste for the sheriff after his past in El Paso came to light. "Everyone wants him gone," wrote one X user, while another added that "people are angry". A third chimed in that Chris had "botched this [case] from the start," while a fourth added: "My gut is telling me it was totally mishandled."
© Getty Images
Chris faced backlash from social media users
Chris did garner support from some social media users, with one writing: "Wasn't this decades ago? [In my opinion] he is working hard to find Nancy Guthrie," while another added that the focus on his past was "fueling a dishonest narrative" about Chris' competency.
© WireImage
Nancy went missing from her Arizona home in February
The Pima County Sheriff's Department has worked closely with the FBI since Nancy went missing in February. While several suspects have been questioned regarding her disappearance, no arrests have been made, and DNA evidence is still being examined by the authorities.
Nancy, the 84-year-old mother of Today show star Savannah Guthrie, was believed to have been taken by force from her home in Tucson, Arizona, after blood was found on the doorstep, and her personal effects were found inside the house.
Clarence Thomas Blasts Supreme Court For Refusing Florida Case
Florida argued the two states were undermining public safety by allowing individuals without legal immigration status — and, in some cases, insufficient English-language proficiency — to obtain commercial trucking licenses despite federal standards intended to govern interstate transportation safety.
The dispute gained national attention after a deadly 2025 crash on the Florida Turnpike involving an undocumented truck driver reportedly licensed through California or Washington.
According to the lawsuit, the driver allegedly made an illegal U-turn and was unable to properly interpret roadway signage, resulting in a collision that killed three people.
Joined by Justice Samuel Alito, Thomas argued the high court had a constitutional obligation to hear the interstate dispute because Florida had no other legal forum available to challenge another state’s policies.
The court’s majority denied Florida’s request without explanation.
The case underscores the growing national clash over immigration enforcement, state licensing authority, and whether states with looser immigration policies are creating broader public safety consequences for the rest of the country.
Thomas ripped the majority for refusing to hear the lawsuit since disputes between states can only be brought before the Supreme Court.
“If this Court does not exercise jurisdiction over a controversy between two States, then the complaining State has no judicial forum in which to seek relief,” Thomas wrote.
Thomas argued that Florida’s allegations against California and Washington raised serious public safety concerns, warning that failures to properly follow federal commercial driver licensing (CDL) laws can create dangerous conditions on American roadways.
Thomas pointed to the fatal Florida highway crash involving truck driver Harjinder Singh, who he said “could not read the road signs,” and argued Florida deserved a chance to pursue its claims.
Two blue states – California and Washington – issued Singh a CDL.
“An illegal alien who cannot read English road signs cannot drive an 80,000-pound tractor-trailer,” Thomas wrote.
“Federal law and regulations prohibit States from providing commercial driver’s licenses to applicants unless they pass a driver’s test, sufficiently understand the English language, and show appropriate immigration status,” he added.
Thomas argued that while the Supreme Court of the United States may have broad discretion when deciding whether to hear ordinary appeals, disputes between states occupy a different category because the Constitution grants the high court exclusive jurisdiction over those cases.
“We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given,” Thomas wrote.
He also accused the court of failing to follow the Constitution by refusing to hear disputes between states.
“This Court has adopted a discretionary approach to its exclusive original jurisdiction based on policy judgments that are in conflict with the policy choices that Congress made in the statutory text,” Thomas wrote.
Thomas argued that if Florida, California, and Washington were separate sovereign nations rather than American states, a dispute involving one government allegedly allowing unsafe drivers into another jurisdiction could trigger major diplomatic conflict.
Thomas suggested that in an international context, such disputes would likely be addressed through international courts, treaties, or direct government action.
“By entering the Union, States agree to instead have such disputes resolved by this Court,” he wrote.
The issuance of commercial driver’s licenses to non-citizens came under increased scrutiny from the Department of Transportation last summer following a series of deadly crashes involving undocumented immigrant truck drivers.
Last September, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced stricter federal requirements for non-citizens seeking commercial driver’s licenses, part of a broader push by the Trump administration to tighten transportation and immigration enforcement standards, Fox News reported.
Duffy also warned that California could risk losing federal transportation funding if the state continued allowing commercial licenses to remain active for individuals deemed ineligible under revised federal guidelines.
