May 2 (UPI) — The arrest of a Wisconsin judge may have a chilling effect on the courts, experts say, even if the charges are justifiable.
The federal government alleges in its complaint against Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan that she attempted to help a person who was subject to a removal order evade arresting officers at the Milwaukee County Courthouse. She was arrested on April 25 before being released and has subsequently been suspended by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Dugan is charged with obstructing or impeding a proceeding before a department or agency and concealing an individual to prevent his discovery and arrest.
FBI Director Kash Patel shared a photo of Dugan’s arrest on April 25, writing, “No one is above the law.”
Three legal experts who spoke with UPI agree that arresting a judge at a courthouse is unusual.
Jon Gould, professor of criminology, law and society at the University of California-Irvine, told UPI the case raises complex questions about the rule of law, immigration and the jurisdiction of the federal government.
“The arrest is kind of a Rorschach test in terms of how people think about the rule of law and immigration,” Gould said. “On one hand, this is an attack on the integrity of the judiciary, and the state’s judiciary at that, by the federal government. The other perspective on this is that a judge allowed her personal interest to get in the way of the law and allowed someone who was under suspicion by the federal government to escape her courtroom.”
Allegations
Dugan was arrested for an incident that occurred at the courthouse on April 18. Six deportation officers, including FBI special agents, agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, went to the courthouse to arrest a person who had a hearing in Dugan’s courtroom. The agents were “generally dressed in plain clothes.”
The complaint alleges that Dugan was on the bench conducting proceedings in the courtroom when she was made aware of the presence of officers.
Dugan approached some of the officers and asked if they had a judicial warrant, which they did not. Instead they said they had an administrative warrant and showed it to her. Dugan then directed them to report to the chief judge and show them the warrant.
The agents were escorted by another judge to the chief judge’s chambers, aside from one agent whom the complaint said “was not recognized by Judge Dugan and Judge A as being part of the arrest team.” That agent remained outside of the courtroom.
As members of the arrest team spoke with the chief judge, they claimed the courtroom deputy made a comment about Dugan “pushing” the case of the person they intended to arrest through, “which the arrest team interpreted to mean that Judge Dugan was attempting to expedite” their hearing.
The complaint said witnesses saw Dugan redirect the intended arrestee from exiting into the public hallway toward a nonpublic part of the courthouse through the jury door. Dugan allegedly escorted them through this area before returning to the bench and continuing with the day’s docket.
The arrestee ultimately made it out of the courthouse but was arrested after a brief “foot chase.”
“The reality is the judge did something wrong and so the question isn’t whether the judge should be penalized,” Gould said. “The question is who should do it and how should they do it?”
Judicial integrity
Typically a situation such as this would not result in a judge being handcuffed outside of the courthouse, according to Meena Bose, dean of Hofstra University’s public policy program and director of presidential studies.
“There could have been a referral to a judicial conference in Wisconsin to determine how to proceed,” Bose told UPI.
When Massachusetts District Court Judge Shelley Joseph was accused by the first Trump administration of obstructing the arrest of an immigrant in her courthouse in 2018, she was not indicted until nearly a year later in 2019, following an investigation into the incident.
“Without a doubt with Judge Dugan there needs to be some accountability for what happened,” Bose said. “The Justice Department, by pursuing so aggressively, is perhaps creating a climate of fear for judges on what the extent of their authority is.”
“The arrest seems extreme. The suspension does not,” she added. “Obviously everyone is required to follow the rule of law.”
The arrest and charges against Dugan have sparked concerns about intimidation against judges but Russell Wheeler adds that the presence of deportation agents in the courthouse also creates a chilling effect. Wheeler is a non-resident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
“The question is whether or not they should be searching in the courthouse in the first place,” Wheeler told UPI. “They don’t want ICE agents in the courthouse because people without status are going to be afraid to testify, be witnesses and cooperate with law enforcement.”
Wheeler’s concerns are not limited to immigration-related arrests, though in the current climate that concern is heightened.
“There’s a host of reasons you want to keep the courthouse open, regardless of status,” he said. “It’s the same reason as having a church as a no-arrest zone. That’s a matter of preserving religious freedom. This is a matter, in my view, of preserving the integrity of the judicial process. You don’t do that by creating a system where people are afraid to go to court. You don’t want to discourage people from reporting crimes or providing evidence.”
