In a bold move, Wisconsin Judge Monica Isham has threatened to stop court proceedings in protest of the federal arrest of her colleague, Judge Hannah Dugan, who was arrested last week by federal authorities. Isham, who serves in Sawyer County, made her intentions clear in an email sent to judges across the state, stating she would refuse to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) unless she receives guidance and support from the state’s leadership.
The email, which was sent on Saturday, was titled “Guidance Requested or I Refuse to Hold Court.” In it, Judge Isham expressed her opposition to the involvement of ICE in her courtroom and made it clear that she would not risk the safety of herself or her staff by allowing federal authorities to act within her jurisdiction. “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 wrote, according to a copy of the email obtained by Wisconsin Right Now.
Her email further outlined her strong stance against ICE’s role in the courtroom, with Isham stating, “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’s message also included a rhetorical challenge, questioning whether she should start raising bail money in anticipation of any legal consequences she might face for her stance. She made it clear that she was prepared to risk her job and potential arrest for what she believes is the right thing to do: uphold constitutional principles.
Background of the Arrest: Judge Hannah Dugan’s Role
The controversy centers on the recent arrest of Judge Hannah Dugan, who was taken into custody by federal agents on Friday. Dugan faces charges related to obstruction of justice and concealing an individual to prevent their arrest after she allegedly helped a migrant, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, evade ICE custody. According to a criminal complaint, federal agents from ICE, the FBI, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) had been attempting to arrest Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican national who was illegally in the U.S. and facing charges for alleged misdemeanor battery.
The incident occurred following Flores-Ruiz’s court appearance on April 18, where he was accused of assaulting two people. After the hearing, Judge Dugan allegedly ordered officers to go to the chief judge’s office and escorted Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out through a restricted jury door, bypassing the public area where federal agents had been waiting. This action allowed Flores-Ruiz to evade arrest, an act that authorities say constitutes obstruction.
The arrest of Judge Dugan has garnered significant attention, particularly due to her background. Before her time on the bench, Dugan worked with legal aid organizations and served as the executive director of Catholic Charities. In 2016, she was elected to Branch 31 of the Circuit Court, where she ran unopposed in 2022. Dugan’s work primarily involves handling misdemeanor cases, but her involvement in aiding an individual facing deportation has placed her at the center of a larger national debate about judicial responsibility and immigration enforcement.
The Wider Legal and Political Context
Judge Isham’s threat to halt court proceedings is the latest development in a growing controversy regarding the role of judges in immigration enforcement. The arrest of Judge Dugan follows a similar case in New Mexico, where former Judge Joel Cano and his wife were arrested for harboring an illegal immigrant with suspected ties to the Venezuelan-based Tren de Aragua gang, which has been designated a terrorist organization by the Trump administration.
In both cases, the judges are accused of aiding and abetting illegal immigrants by obstructing their arrest or providing them with sanctuary. These cases have sparked heated discussions about the intersection of immigration policy and the independence of the judiciary, with some legal experts expressing concern that judges should not become involved in preventing law enforcement from carrying out their duties. On the other hand, others, like Isham, argue that judges have a duty to protect due process and uphold constitutional rights, especially when it comes to the treatment of individuals facing deportation.
Tom Homan, the former acting director of ICE, weighed in on the matter during an interview over the weekend, stating that the arrests of the two judges should not have been a surprise. Homan emphasized that while individuals can choose to support immigration reform or advocate for immigrants’ rights, aiding and abetting illegal immigrants crosses a legal line. “Nobody should be surprised by the arrest of two judges,” Homan said, adding that, “people can choose to support illegal immigration and not assist ICE in removing criminal illegal aliens from our communities, BUT DON’T CROSS THAT LINE.”
The Constitutional Debate: Judges and Immigration Enforcement
The arrest of Judge Dugan, combined with Isham’s dramatic threat to halt court proceedings, raises questions about the role of the judiciary in upholding both the law and constitutional principles. Judges, by nature, are tasked with ensuring that legal procedures are followed and that defendants are afforded due process. However, when it comes to immigration enforcement, the situation becomes more complicated.
The Trump administration argues that individuals who are detained and deported have already had their due process through immigration judges, who make determinations on whether someone should be deported. This position has been reinforced by comments from Tom Homan, who has emphasized that the deportation orders these individuals face are legally valid and should be carried out by ICE agents.
However, judges like Isham and Dugan appear to take issue with the manner in which deportations are carried out, especially when they believe that individuals may not have received a fair trial or may be at risk of being subjected to inhumane conditions. Isham’s statement calling for bail money and her refusal to cooperate with ICE reflects her belief that the judicial system should protect individuals, regardless of their immigration status, and that ICE’s involvement in the courtroom undermines the core principles of justice.
The Fallout: Legal, Political, and Social Implications
The fallout from these developments is likely to have both legal and political implications. On the legal side, the threat of judges halting court proceedings raises serious questions about the separation of powers and the ability of the judiciary to maintain its independence. If judges are allowed to obstruct law enforcement’s ability to carry out their duties, it could create a dangerous precedent that undermines the rule of law. On the other hand, if judges are forced to comply with federal immigration enforcement policies that they believe violate constitutional rights, it could also undermine the judiciary’s ability to act as a check on executive power.
Politically, the arrest of Judges Dugan and Cano, along with Isham’s protest, is likely to fuel the ongoing debate about immigration reform in the U.S. The cases highlight the deep divisions over how immigration law should be enforced and the role that judges and courts should play in that enforcement. While some view these actions as a defense of human rights and constitutional protections, others see them as overreach that could undermine public trust in the legal system.
Conclusion: A Defining Moment for the Judiciary
The arrest of Judge Dugan and the subsequent protest by Judge Isham represents a defining moment for the judiciary, as courts across the nation wrestle with the complex intersection of immigration law and constitutional protections. These incidents highlight the tensions between the enforcement of federal immigration policies and the independence of the judicial system, raising important questions about the role of judges in shaping immigration law enforcement and whether they should be compelled to aid federal agencies in carrying out deportations.
As the legal and political fallout continues to unfold, it is clear that this issue will remain at the forefront of national debates surrounding immigration, the rights of individuals, and the role of the judiciary in preserving justice. Whether the actions of judges like Isham and Dugan will lead to broader changes in the way courts handle immigration-related cases remains to be seen, but these events have already made a significant impact on the national conversation.
