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.
So good.
Okay, and during the thing, I will be looking over here
because that's where your images and the monitor
for what our audience will see.
So don't think I'm wandering off
and looking a different direction,
but that's where you appear in our studio.
Okay.
We're all set.
Okay, 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.
Dugan 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 and 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 complaint is true,
yeah, they've got a pretty strong case.
The ICE agents were in the public areas of the courthouse
where law enforcement is 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.
And at that point, I think there'll be no doubt
that the state's 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 that 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 worth also pointing out that the decision
by the state's Supreme Court to suspend judge duty
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
and 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 court houses.
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,
the perp walk element of the whole thing.
That was very clearly an aesthetic intended
to send a message of a threat to judges everywhere.
State and local judges everywhere,
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?
Well, that's the policy side of this.
And it's absolutely, you know,
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 know, you may be subject to arrest,
that's gonna make them go underground
and that's gonna make it harder for the police
and for prosecutors and criminal cases
and in civil cases though.
You know, cases of, for example,
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 or 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 courtrooms.
Again, I have to come back to two key points here.
One, if every single one of the facts alleges
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 to the court system
as whole, not to see 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 it 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?
Or 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, right?
So the big question is, this gets rather technical.
The case is welcome administrative warrants,
unlike warrants signed by judges,
do not permit law enforcement to enter into private spaces
without permission.
There's a kind of background understanding
that court rooms are treated as private spaces
but that the public areas of court houses are not
and that's an established understanding,
that's not brand new.
I think it'll be useful for the chief judge
to come up with a clear set of guidelines
that judges are on the state,
but certainly part of the problem is,
it 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 and get that worked out.
We've seen one Wisconsin judge already
threatened to effectively shut down her courtroom
in the absence of guidance.
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 that it will have some detailed rules
and policies.
I think the one thing that's very clear
the state Supreme Court has made very clear
is once those policies are in place,
they will be enforced.
All right.
Professor Schraver, thanks for your time today.
Thank you.
Thank you so much, sir.
Good to hear from you and we'll see you back in Wisconsin.
You bet.
Sorry about the delay earlier.
That's fine.
We're good.
Thank you.