Supreme Court's actions, and
I read a couple full screens, one
from Tammy Baldwin, one from Robin
Voss, then we introduce you, and
then we've got a little over five
minutes for our conversation.
Sounds good!
Okay, and during the thing, I will
be looking over here because that's
where your image is on the
monitor for what our audience will
see. So don't think I'm
wandering off and looking a
different direction, but that's were
you appear in our studio.
We're all set.
We're just about ready.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court this
week announced they were temporarily
suspending Milwaukee County Judge
Hannah Dugan, quote, in order to
uphold the public's confidence in
the courts of this state.
Duggan was arrested and charged in
federal court with obstructing
federal immigration officials in
their efforts to arrest an illegal
immigrant following an appearance in
her courtroom.
Reactions to these events have
remained political.
Democratic U.S.
Senator Tammy Baldwin said, quote,
The president's administration
arresting a sitting judge is a
gravely serious and drastic move.
While details of this exact case
remain minimal, this action fits
into the deeply concerning patterns
of this president's lawless behavior
in undermining courts and Congress's
checks on his power.
While Republican Assembly Speaker
Robin Voss said, quote, these are
serious charges and it's important
to remember no one is above the law.
We are reviewing the situation and
the charges result in a conviction
we will act.
Judge Dugan's decision to hide a
dangerous illegal immigrant was
irresponsible and put public safety
at risk.
Joining us now is UW-Madison
professor emeritus Howard Schwaber.
Thanks for your time.
Well, thanks for having me.
So what is your opinion of the case
put forward by the federal
government? Did they have grounds to
make an arrest here?
Well, we have to keep in mind that
the only facts we have to go on are
those contained in the complaint,
right? And there's a reason we don't
take complaints at face value.
That's why we have trials.
So based, but based only on
those facts and assuming everything
that is alleged in the complaints is
true, yeah, they've got a pretty
strong case.
The ICE agents were
in the public areas of the
courthouse where law enforcement was
permitted by both law and tradition
to make arrests.
It appears the judge very much went
out of her way.
To help this guy evade arrest.
It was not a matter of simply like
pointing to a door.
There was much more to it than that,
according to the allegations.
So if these facts bear
out, and if she is convicted on
the basis of the complaint as
it stands, I would say that the case
against her is pretty strong.
But at that point, I think there'd
be no doubt that the
state Supreme Court, as well as the
state legislature, would take action
to remove her from the bench.
Now, her case will play out in
federal court, but what's the impact
in other courtrooms?
Is there any doubt the Trump
administration was trying to send a
message to all judges everywhere in
these actions?
No, there's no doubt about that at
all. It's worth remembering that in
his first term, Trump also had
a judge in Massachusetts arrested.
It's also worth pointing out that
this, the decision by
the state Supreme Court to suspend
Judge Dugan was seven to zero, was
unanimous.
It's temporary and it's a suspension
with pay.
So we shouldn't overstate where we
are at in the specifics of the case,
but the political environment is
exactly what you just raised.
The Trump administration has been
going after and trying to intimidate
federal judges from the beginning
with threats of impeachment and
threats to shut down courthouses.
I don't think it's a coincidence
that this week the
Trump administration announced an
executive order targeting state and
local officials who interfere with
deportation efforts.
And the manner of the arrest was
really egregious.
Handcuffs and photographs.
And publicity, you know, the purple
walk element of the whole thing.
That was very clearly an esthetic
intended to send a message that's
of a threat to judges
everywhere, state and local judges
everywhere. You know, don't get in
our way. It won't end well for you.
Some law enforcement officials
like here in Dane County
specifically avoid asking questions
around immigration status because
they've said they don't want
potential witnesses or victims to
feel intimidated or have concerns
about showing up at courtrooms.
What will this mean in terms of
justice in a lot of other cases that
have nothing to do with this
particular issue.
That's the policy side of this,
and it's absolutely, again,
you've raised exactly the right
concern.
It doesn't work to simply exclude
a category of people and say, if you
participate in our court system
in any way, you may be subject
to arrest.
That's going to make them go
underground, and that's going make
it harder for the police and
for prosecutors in criminal cases
and in civil cases, though.
Cases of, for example,
domestic abuse, which is one of the
allegations that's involved in this
case. It just gets very much harder
for the rule of law to be
maintained, for people to be
protected.
So on policy grounds, you know,
there's a really good reason why in
the past law enforcement has been
very hesitant to operate inside of
court houses and especially
court rooms.
Again, I have to come back to two
key points here.
One, if every single one of the
facts alleged is exactly as the
federal government says it is, this
is a strong case, and this judge
acted at least recklessly.
And two, the unanimous
opinion by the state Supreme Court,
I think, shows that that court is
very, very concerned not
to see this become a disruption of
the court system as a whole, not to
these kind of conflicts spreading
across the state.
But the background politics
of intimidation of state and local
officials and of judges in
particular, I think is in everyone's
mind, and rightly so.
Now we spoke with one of the
nine chief judges in Wisconsin and
they said they're waiting for the
director of state courts or the
chief of chiefs to speak out, but
we've heard nothing so far other
than this one statement by the
Wisconsin Supreme Court.
And is the silence pretty loud in
that situation?
Do they have an obligation to speak
out publicly or give guidance
to judges in this situation?
Well, I don't know about an
obligation.
The big question is,
this gets rather technical.
The case involved an administrative
warrant. Administrative warrants,
unlike warrants signed by judges,
do not permit law enforcement to
enter into private spaces without
permission.
There's a kind of backward
understanding that courtrooms are
treated as private spaces, but that
the public areas of courthouses are
not. And that's an established
understanding. That's not brand new.
I think it would be useful for the
chief judge to come up with a clear
set of guidelines the judges around
the state. But certainly part
of the problem is there
has to be a concern of pushback from
the federal government and from
federal authorities if the feds
don't like the rules that Wisconsin
comes up with. So there may be
negotiations going on behind the
scenes to try to get that worked
out.
We've seen one Wisconsin judge
already threaten to effectively shut
down her courtroom.
In the absence of guidance, you
know, that's another thing that
could spread and that would be a
problem. So I expect that a
statement would be forthcoming, and
I expect it will have some detailed
rules and policies.
And I think the one thing that's
very clear that the state Supreme
Court has made very clear is once
those policies are in place, they
will be enforced.
Professor Schreiber, thanks for your
time today.
Thank you so much, sir.
Good to hear from you. We'll see you
back in Wisconsin.
You better sorry about the player of
the last night about
We're good. Thank you.