Assuming for the sake of argument that nobody is going to do anything blatantly unconstitutional, ITSM that the Constitutional question of whether they can do that is sufficiently unclear that the courts would have to rule on it, which means that the answer would be “no”.
But this seems like a potentially researchable question. Obviously the structure of the inferior Federal Courts has been changed many times over the years just to accommodate the growth of the nation; how was this handled previously WRT those judges already in office?
I came to post that story. Here’s the NYTimes (gift) link:
F.B.I. Director Kash Patel said on Friday that agents had arrested a county judge in Milwaukee on charges of obstructing immigration enforcement. A spokesman for the U.S. Marshals confirmed the arrest of a sitting judge, a major escalation in the Trump administration’s battle with local authorities over deportations.
The bureau arrested Judge Hannah Dugan on suspicion that she “intentionally misdirected federal agents away from” an immigrant being pursued by federal authorities, Mr. Patel wrote on social media. He later deleted the post for reasons that were not immediately clear. An F.B.I. spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Brady McCarron, a spokesman for the U.S. Marshals, confirmed that the judge had been arrested by F.B.I. agents on Friday morning. The charging document against the judge was not immediately available in federal court records.
…
OK. So, hyperliterally, Congress cannot disestablish inferior courts – they can only establish them. But, as you point out, also by a literalist interpretation, Congress can create conditions under which our long-established inferior courts have hardly anything to do. Right?
Even Thomas and Alito are, to an extent, judicial pragmatists. For example, they wouldn’t allow the public to keep and bear arms when visiting their courtroom, despite there being no such carve-out in the 2nd amendment. Their excuse there is to grandfather in 18th (and 19th?) century gun controls. But they didn’t have a Supreme Court building until 1935. And the other justices are even more clearly judicial pragmatists.
Trump says he has an Article II, Roberts, more quietly, thinks he has an Article III. And if Congress tried to eliminate any large portion of the federal judiciary AKA Article III, SCOTUS would IMHO examine the new law, find the closest-to-plausible way to strike it down and do that.
Shouldn’t EVERY judge in the US be seriously alarmed by this? They should be collectively freaking the fuck out! This is astonishing! Even if they are big Trump supporters this should scare the shit out of them. Not to mention it is reducing their power substantially which most people jealously guard.
And yet…it’s crickets.
Also, does the FBI just arrest anyone the president says to arrest (even if via the DoJ)? WTF??? The American Gestapo (and I mean that, not Godwinizing it).
Seems to me judges constantly “interfere” with law enforcement. Nothing new there. Unless the judge was bribed/corrupt I can’t see how that can possibly stick. If she’s a shitty judge the proper route is to impeach her and remove her from her position (or vote her out if she is elected).
If she said he went this way when she knew he went that way then yes, lying to the police. BUT if (as I suspect) she didn’t say anything then its a BS obstruction charge of “not answering our questions” that cops arrest people for all of the time.
Local and state law enforcement and court systems are independent from and have no obligation to comply with immigration law (which is federal by nature). The question is is that knowing that the defendant was being sought by ICE agents (who Judge Dugan directed to speak with the “chief judge” (presumably Judge Carl Ashley, Chief Judge of the First Judicial District of the County of Milwaukee) and then escorting the defendant through the jury exit out of her courtroom (and from thence out of the courthouse), did she interfere with ICE agents in pursuit of their target? I think the answer is that yes, she did in fact interfere with those agents in execution of their duties. Had they been attempting to enter the courtroom, disrupting court activities then she might have an argument for taking action to protect the jurisdiction of the court and the ‘sanctity of proceedings’ but they were reported to be waiting out in the hallway for the defendant, which is entirely legal and often a way that defendants with outstanding warrants or offenses are apprehended, but she knowingly gave aid in helping the defendant (briefly) evade ICE agents.
Arresting the judge for what was at most a petty misdemeanor was an obvious political move to test just how much they could get away with and obviously unnecessary since the judge’s place of work is well established (and she’s unlikely to go on the lam over such a trivial offense). The judge’s real ‘crime’ that warranted such action was an act of civil disobedience toward this ‘enhanced’ immigration enforcement, no doubt in part because of how it makes the job of local law enforcement and courts so much more difficult when the people involved don’t want to identify themselves to police or show up in court for fear of being deported.
Thanks for that. The New York Times has a PDF of the charging document. The “offense description” part says.
18 U.S.C. § 1505 Obstructing or impeding a proceeding before a department or agency of the United States
18 U.S.C. § 1071 Concealing an individual to prevent his discovery and arrest
Hypothesis: Judges (like employers), all over the U.S., have recently been planning what to do if I.C.E. comes to their workplace. The goal is to give the minimum amount of cooperation without clearly violating the law.
Perhaps Judge Dugan is in this category and was careful not to cross red lines.
I didn’t retain enough of the discussion to explain this properly, so my apologies if this doesn’t make enough sense, but I watched a legal commentator be interviewed on News Nation about the judge’s arrest, and he was pointing out that an ICE warrant isn’t issued by a judge and thus is somewhat more limited than a court-ordered warrant. He seemed to believe that this could affect the validity of ICE’s attempt to make the arrest in the courthouse and therefore diminish the judge’s alleged culpability.
I have no idea if that’s a valid argument. In any case, given how Trump’s been demonizing judges who rule against him, it’s another step along the way to destroying judicial restraint of the worst of this maladministration’s abuses.
A courthouse is a public space; there is no expectation of privacy or sanctum, although if the agents had entered the judge’s courtroom during session she would have been entirely within her purview to have them removed.
This is the obvious intent of making such an issue of obstruction. If this had been a shopkeeper letting someone sneak out the back they wouldn’t have made an issue because who cares, but because it was a judge (and especially in a judiciary in which the regime has no authority) they’re making a big performance of arrest; shades of post-Weimar Germany. Next it will be medical personnel, and teachers, and librarians, and religious leaders who dare to aid immigrants, or protestors, or anyone who defies this regime.
What the judge did was technically illegal, and was a legitimate act of Thoreauian civil disobedience. May she be an inspiration for others.
I read (but not sure where in the firehose) that the door she directed him to leads to the same corridor where the ICE agents were, and that he bolted away and evaded them. Can anyone confirm this?