A dramatic standoff is unfolding in Wisconsin after a judge threatened to cease court proceedings in protest of the federal arrest of her colleague, Judge Hannah Dugan, last week. Judge Monica Isham, a state judge in Sawyer County, has issued a stern ultimatum that could disrupt court operations unless she receives clear guidance or support from state authorities regarding the involvement of federal immigration enforcement in local legal matters.
In an email sent to judges across Wisconsin on Saturday, Isham laid out her refusal to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The email, titled “Guidance Requested or I Refuse to Hold Court,” made it clear that Isham’s commitment to due process would outweigh any legal pressure from federal authorities.
“I have no intention of allowing anyone to be taken out of my courtroom by ICE and sent to a concentration camp, especially without due process, as BOTH of the constitutions we swore to support require,” Isham wrote, citing both the U.S. and Wisconsin constitutions. She further emphasized the gravity of her stance, adding, “If there is no guidance for us and no support for us, I will refuse to hold court in Branch 2 in Sawyer County.”
Isham’s ultimatum stems from the controversial arrest of Judge Dugan, who was taken into custody last Friday by federal agents. Dugan faces multiple charges, including obstruction of an official proceeding and concealing an individual to prevent their discovery and arrest. The case involves the escape of a Mexican national, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, who was being sought for deportation after a court appearance on assault charges.
The Arrest That Sparked Outrage
The controversy began following a courtroom encounter in April when Flores-Ruiz, who was in the U.S. illegally, appeared before Judge Dugan on three misdemeanor battery charges. After the hearing concluded, Dugan allegedly facilitated Flores-Ruiz’s escape by escorting him and his attorney out through a restricted jury door, bypassing the waiting federal agents. This act, as outlined in the criminal complaint, allowed Flores-Ruiz to evade the agents from ICE, FBI, CBP, and DEA who were poised to arrest him.
The federal government asserts that Flores-Ruiz had already undergone due process in immigration court and was subject to a deportation order. According to Trump administration officials, individuals like Flores-Ruiz are afforded their due process through an immigration judge before any action is taken for deportation. Despite this, Judge Isham and other critics argue that the action against Dugan was an infringement on the rights of judges to uphold their own courtroom proceedings free from federal interference.
Judge Dugan’s history with legal aid organizations and her tenure with Catholic Charities gives context to her motivations, with some suggesting that her background in humanitarian work influenced her decision to help Flores-Ruiz evade deportation. Dugan, who was elected in 2016 and re-elected unopposed in 2022, has primarily handled misdemeanor cases in her role as a circuit court judge.
A Showdown Between State and Federal Authorities
The escalation of this issue has ignited tensions between state and federal authorities, particularly regarding the role of local judges in immigration enforcement. Isham’s open defiance of ICE and her refusal to proceed with court cases unless given proper guidance has raised concerns about the potential disruption of judicial processes in Wisconsin. While many judges are expected to maintain a neutral stance in cases involving federal immigration law, Isham’s stance highlights the deepening divide over how local courts should interact with federal immigration enforcement.
On social media, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Harmeet Dhillon, responded to Isham’s email, calling the judge’s threat “problematic.” Dhillon’s comment underscored the legal and constitutional implications of a judge refusing to cooperate with federal law enforcement, and the potential consequences of such a stance on the integrity of court systems.
For Isham, this is not merely a legal issue but a moral one. In her email, she voiced concerns over the treatment of individuals in the immigration system, framing her refusal as a defense of human rights and justice. “Should I start raising bail money?” she wrote, signaling her willingness to take personal responsibility for her actions if they lead to arrest or dismissal from her position.
The Arrest of Judge Joel Cano: Another Example of Judicial Defiance
The arrest of Judge Dugan is not an isolated incident. A similar case has emerged in New Mexico, where former Judge Joel Cano was arrested for harboring an illegal immigrant suspected of ties to the Venezuelan-based Tren de Aragua gang, which the Trump administration has classified as a terrorist organization. Cano faces charges of harboring an illegal alien and providing firearms to the individual in question. The case has drawn national attention to the role of judges in facilitating or obstructing immigration enforcement, especially when the individuals involved are suspected of criminal activities.
The pattern of judicial defiance against federal immigration authorities has raised alarm bells in Washington. Tom Homan, the former acting director of ICE, has openly criticized the actions of judges like Dugan and Cano. In a social media statement, Homan made it clear that he believes judges are not above the law. “People can choose to support illegal immigration, but don’t cross that line,” Homan wrote, warning that aiding illegal immigrants could have severe legal consequences for those in the judiciary.
Homan’s statement suggests that the Trump administration is committed to holding all individuals, including judges, accountable for obstructing federal immigration enforcement. Despite widespread criticism from those who support immigrant rights, the administration appears resolute in its belief that the judiciary must align with federal immigration policies to maintain order and security.
The Legal and Constitutional Implications
The ongoing conflict raises significant questions about the intersection of judicial independence, state sovereignty, and federal authority. While judges like Isham and Dugan argue that their actions are guided by their constitutional duty to protect individual rights and ensure due process, others contend that their defiance undermines the rule of law and the federal government’s ability to enforce immigration policy.
At the heart of the issue is the question of whether judges should be allowed to intervene in federal enforcement actions, particularly when those actions involve individuals accused of serious crimes or immigration violations. The U.S. Constitution grants the judiciary the power to interpret and apply the law, but it also establishes the supremacy of federal law. This creates a tension between state-level judicial autonomy and the federal government’s authority to enforce laws on immigration and national security.
For the public and legal community, the stakes are high. The actions of judges like Dugan and Isham could set a precedent for how courts across the nation interact with federal immigration enforcement. If judges are allowed to shield individuals from deportation or arrest, it could challenge the effectiveness of ICE and other federal agencies in maintaining border security.
Conclusion: A Growing Rift in the Judiciary
The controversy surrounding the arrests of Judges Dugan and Cano, as well as the actions of Judge Isham in Wisconsin, highlights a growing rift between state-level courts and federal authorities. As the nation grapples with contentious issues related to immigration policy and enforcement, the role of the judiciary will continue to be a critical factor in shaping the future of U.S. immigration law.
The outcome of these cases could have profound implications for the relationship between federal and state judicial systems, and for how courts across the country handle cases involving immigration enforcement. Whether or not judges like Isham will continue to challenge federal immigration authorities remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: the tensions between local and federal powers in this area are far from over.
