Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor once remarked that the law should be applied to facts, not feelings. This principle is crucial for judges in America, and when they stray from it, the rule of law is endangered. This deviation gives rise to judicial tyranny, where emotions overshadow the very foundation of legal principles, ultimately eroding public trust.
Recently, two state court judges have been accused of letting their emotional inclinations dictate their legal responsibilities. By positioning themselves as sanctuary judges, they have taken steps that expose them to criminal charges for aiding illegal migrants.
In Wisconsin, Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan faced serious allegations involving her conduct during a federal operation targeting an illegal alien. Dugan reportedly intervened when federal agents arrived to apprehend a defendant in her court accused of domestic abuse. As described in court documents, she allegedly guided the individual through a back door to evade arrest, blurring the lines between judicial impartiality and personal judgment.
Once outside, the defendant fled, triggering a foot chase that endangered both citizens and law enforcement. Eventually, federal agents arrested the man, while Dugan found herself arrested on charges of federal obstruction and concealment, which could lead to a six-year prison sentence if convicted.
In New Mexico, another judge, Jose Luis Cano, faced similar scrutiny. Along with his wife, Cano allegedly harbored an illegal migrant with ties to a violent criminal gang. Reports indicate that Cano provided this individual with access to firearms equipped with suppressors. Following the investigation, both Cano and his wife were taken into custody. Cano has since resigned, and the state supreme court has banned him from holding a judicial position again.
Observers have expressed concerns about the motivations behind these arrests. Several Democrats expressed outrage, suggesting that these legal actions are politically motivated attacks against liberal judges. However, the charges against Dugan and Cano reflect a necessary enforcement of the law regardless of personal or political affiliations. Like any citizen, judges are not above the law and must be held accountable for their actions.
Judges must adhere strictly to the law they have sworn to uphold. History has shown that failing to do so can lead to serious consequences. A notable case involved Massachusetts Judge Shelly Joseph, who faced indictment for assisting an illegal migrant’s escape from her courtroom back in 2018. In that instance, Joseph reached a deal with federal prosecutors that resulted in disciplinary actions but no criminal penalties.
The recent judicial arrests highlight a disconcerting trend wherein some judges appear to prioritize personal beliefs over legal obligations. Notably, a colleague of Judge Dugan, Wisconsin Judge Monica Isham, made headlines with her objection to Dugan’s arrest. Isham announced plans to boycott her courtroom in protest, claiming she no longer feels respected as a judge.
Isham’s rhetoric raises important questions about the responsibilities judges have to the law versus their personal feelings. The premise that emotions should play a role in legal adjudication undermines the integrity of the judicial system. As stated by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, law enforcement will not tolerate local officials who place political agendas above public safety.
The historical context is critical here. Judicial sanctuary policies have been criticized for dismantling essential law enforcement mechanisms. Judges often apply local ordinances that protect illegal migrants while conveniently disregarding federal laws, which hold precedence in these matters.
Congress enacted laws decades ago making it a criminal offense to harbor individuals illegally residing in the United States. These laws also impose penalties for obstructing federal officers in the performance of their legal duties. The Illegal Immigration Reform Act of 1996 further mandates cooperation between state and federal authorities in matters related to immigration enforcement.
The recent backlash from Democratic figures against the judicial arrests stands in stark contrast to their previous insistence that no one is above the law. This highlights a glaring inconsistency in their stance. While they rallied against the indictments of former President Donald Trump, their outrage over the actions taken against judges who allegedly defied the law betrays a selective interpretation of justice.
Judges hold influential positions in the legal system and must act responsibly and ethically. If they act contrary to the laws they are meant to enforce, their actions can lead to an erosion of order and respect for the law, inviting chaos and anarchy.
The correlation between feelings and facts in the context of justice brings to light an ongoing struggle within the judicial system. As noted by Justice Brandeis, the government sets a moral example. When it undermines the law, it incites disregard for legal processes among citizens.
The importance of adhering to established legal doctrine is immeasurable. The actions of judges who allow their emotions to guide their judicial decision-making require vigilant scrutiny. Emotion should never supersede legal duty, especially in a system built on justice and equality.
Clearly, the current events highlight a critical inflection point for the judiciary. It prompts a reevaluation of the extent to which personal beliefs should intersect with judicial responsibilities. As the phrase goes, where law ends, tyranny begins, a warning not to be taken lightly in today’s complex legal landscape.
As we move forward, the discussion about law, emotion, and their interplay will remain essential in ensuring a balanced and fair judiciary. An independent legal system must be maintained to uphold the rule of law without the sway of extraneous influences. This principle is foundational to a functioning democracy.
