One aspect of the legal community that has become (disturbingly) clear to me since I entered the weird field of legal ethics full time about 25 years ago is that judges stick together even when it is obviously unethical to do so. I don’t know why this is so—lawyers certainly don’t have this proclivity—but it doesn’t matter why judges close ranks and circle their metaphorical wagons any time one of them is being held accountable for unethical conduct. It matters that it is unethical, and they know it. But in these situations they are like cops erecting the “blue line.”
I have written about the case of a lawyer in Seattle, Washington whose client revealed to him that a state judge was accepting bribes. The lawyer felt it was his duty to report the judge to authorities (especially after the judge ruled against another client after one such bribe), and indeed the judge, who was corrupt, ended up being removed from the bench and prosecuted. But the colleagues of that judge made sure that the lawyer was disbarred, because the evidence he had acted upon was a client confidence. The message sent by the action, however, was clear: don’t mess with judges, even the crooked ones.
I recalled that ugly episode when I read that “More than 150 former state and federal judges have signed a letter to Pam Bondi, the attorney general, condemning the Trump administration’s escalating battles with the judiciary and calling the recent arrest of a sitting state court judge in Milwaukee an attempt to intimidate.” That was the Times version; most news sources just emphasized the last part: How dare the Trump administration arrest a judge?
Before I read the letter, I assumed that the 150 former jurists had found an aspect of the allegations against the judge questionable or unconvincing. This interested me, because the accounts I have read seemed pretty definitive: the judge, Hannah C. Dugan of the Milwaukee County Circuit Court aided and abetted an illegal immigrant’s escape from ICE agents by directing him to leave through a side door in her courtroom while the agents waited to arrest him. Dugan was eventually arrested by the FBI last month for obstructing immigration law enforcement. If the ex-judges were accusing President Trump of intimidation tactics, there must have been something wrong with the arrest, right?
Wrong. The letter doesn’t bother to deny that the judge did what she is accused of, which is mind-blowing conduct for any law enforcement official and particularly a judge. Nah...what the 150 plus find worthy of protest are “the circumstances of Judge Dugan’s arrest which took place seven days after the alleged offense.” Behold…
There was no emergency whatsoever; the administration could have easily issued a summons for Judge Dugan to appear before a court, as they would have done in other white collar cases. There is not an ounce of doubt that Judge Dugan would have appeared in court in response to a summons. Instead, the United States Department of Justice at your direction decided to create an embarrassing spectacle that included the FBI’s arrest and handcuffing of Judge Dugan and the Director of the FBI, Kash Patel, posting a photo of the perp walk on X. As you know well, the Confidentiality and Media Contacts Policy that appears on the Justice Department’s website directs that DOJ personnel “should not voluntarily disclose a photograph of a defendant unless it serves a law enforcement function or unless the photograph is already part of the public record in the case.”
The circumstances of Judge Dugan’s arrest make it clear that it was nothing but an effort to threaten and intimidate the state and federal judiciaries into submitting to the Administration, instead of interpreting the Constitution and laws of the United States. This cynical effort undermines the rule of law and destroys the trust the American people have in the nation’s judges to administer justice in the courtrooms and in the halls of justice across the land.
The letter than slips into over-the-top rhetoric about how brave judges (like them) will not be intimidated by the “Trump Administration’s assault on the judiciary, the Rule of Law and those who administer it, including Judge Dugan.”
Wow. The letter, far from making a case for the Trump administration and the President himself showing insufficient respect and fealty to the judiciary, demonstrates vividly how politicized, untrustworthy and unethical an unacceptable number of judges have become.
Before protesting the arrest of Judge Dugan, the letter reveals the signatories’ horror at Attorney General Bondi referring to politically-motivated judges as “deranged.” Gee, what’s the appropriate adjective for a judge who assists a fugitive from justice in escaping law enforcement by sneaking him out of her courtroom? I think “deranged” is fair, perhaps even restrained.
The letter signed by these judges is also deranged. Dugan’s arrest was “nothing but an effort to threaten and intimidate the state and federal judiciaries into submitting to the Administration”? It was an absolutely appropriate response to a judge, who, like any other citizen, is bound to obey the law, assisting a law-breaker in avoiding law enforcement. The actions of the FBI in arresting a law-breaking judge “undermines the rule of law and destroys the trust the American people have in the nation’s judges to administer justice in the courtrooms and in the halls of justice across the land”? Seriously? AHAHAHAHAHA…<big breath>…HAHAHAHAHAHA! That’s hilarious,tell me another! What undermines the rule of law and the trust of the American People is judges like Dugan breaking the law and expecting to be applauded for it.
Awww, the signatories are upset that the FBI made the criminal judge do a perp walk in front of cameras? Too bleeping bad. In the same section that the ex-judges whine about the judiciary being called deranged, they object to Bondi saying that “[the Administration is] sending a very strong message” and that “we will come after you and we will prosecute you.” Wait…aren’t these the same people who have been bleating about how “nobody is above the law”? Nobody but judges, apparently. Got it.
What sends the message that no one is above the law more clearly than a judge who deliberately foiled law enforcement being perp-walked in front of cameras? In the letter, the jurists write to Bondi “As you know well, the Confidentiality and Media Contacts Policy that appears on the Justice Department’s website directs that DOJ personnel “should not voluntarily disclose a photograph of a defendant unless it serves a law enforcement function or unless the photograph is already part of the public record in the case.”
This spectacle obviously served a law enforcement function by alerting any other judges inclined to give “sanctuary” to illegals that they will be similarly treated—as they should be.
I’d be interested in knowing if any of those signing the letter expressed similar objections when armed FBI agents raided Donald Trump’s home at dawn rather than issuing a summons. But then, Trump wasn’t a judge.
Never mind.
Ethics Alarms 
“There is not an ounce of doubt”
If someone helps someone else evade arrest, why wouldn’t it be reasonable to doubt that that person would also avoid accountability?
They’re just mad that she’s on camera being walked away when, if she had gotten a summons instead, they could have set up their own media performance with protests by disabled vets, grandmothers, and orphans with puppies who would all proclaim that this judge is the best and the fairest judge in all the land.
How many Trump associates (Roger Stone) were arrested by SWAT teams with CNN on hand to record the event. One, Peter Navarro, was arrested at Reagan and put in leg irons all for public display. That one had told the FBI he would be happy to come in if they wanted him.
Wow, Trump is really rent free in a lot of people’s heads! TDS is a real thing, and these leftists should seek professional help!
What is the supposed ideological basis for actually helping illegals evade arrest? Or supporting these same actions?
Illegals are good people. They are inherently superior to indigenous white Americans. They are only in the United States to provide a better life for their families. To send them back to their hell hole country of origin would be cruel and unusual punishment. Because they come from hell hole countries, by bringing the culture of such countries to the United States, inexplicably, the culture of the United States is enriched. And even though the United States is a fascist, oppressive hell hole lacking the charm of the country from which these people come, they will vote Democrat as soon as they are able.
I think those are some of the basic points, Michael.
I keep hearing that the judicial system of federal courts is a co-equal branch of government. I am interested in finding out how people of come to that conclusion regarding all inferior courts established by Congress. It would seem to me that because only the SCOTUS was established by the Constitution those inferior courts are mere appendages of Congress that can be created or destroyed by a majority vote in Congress and thus are not a co-equal branch of government. If they were Congress would have no power to end them.
Chris Marschner: By that logic, the cabinet positions in the Executive branch would also be mere appendages of Congress. Congress created the Department of Education and it would take an act of Congress to get rid of it.
-Jut
Jut,
I am not clear on the point you are making. Perhaps my use of the word appendages of Congress was incorrect. My intent was to state the inferior courts are subordinate to the Legislature and the Supreme Court and thus cannot be an equal to either. Simply incorporating them into the general judiciary does not make the immune from elimination by Congress. They are simply the same as any other department or agency created by Congress and placed under the control of either the Executive, Legislative, or Supreme Court.
The Constitution grants Congress the power to establish inferior courts just as it does for any cabinet position. Yes, it would take an act of Congress to eliminate them and that is my point. Congress cannot eliminate a co-equal branch such as the Executive or Judicial branch which is only the Supreme Court.
Article III lays out that one Supreme Court shall be established and judicial power will lie with that court and any inferior courts Congress may establish. This Article seems to split the baby by saying there is one Supreme court that no one can touch and a variety of inferior courts that Congress can create for its own reasons or needs.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 9: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C9-1/ALDE_00013462/
[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court.
Congress’s ninth enumerated power is to constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court—that is, to establish lower federal courts subordinate to the Supreme Court of the United States.1 This grant of power to Congress accords with Article III’s Vesting Clause, which places the judicial power of the United States in the Supreme Court and such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.2
As explained elsewhere in the Constitution Annotated,3 the Constitutional Convention’s delegates generally agreed that a national judiciary should be established with a supreme tribunal,4 but disagreed as to whether there should be inferior federal tribunals.5 James Wilson (who later served as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court) and James Madison proposed a compromise in which Congress would be empowered to appoint inferior tribunals if necessary, which the Convention approved.6
The Constitution thus leaves the federal judiciary’s structure—and, indeed, whether any federal courts besides the Supreme Court should exist at all—to congressional determination. Through the Judiciary Act of 1789 and subsequent enactments,7 Congress organized the federal judiciary into district courts with original jurisdiction over most federal cases, intermediate circuit courts of appeal, and the Supreme Court.
Congress’s Article I power to establish inferior federal courts, and to distribute federal jurisdiction among them, should be read alongside Article III’s provisions, which set forth the reach of federal judicial power.8 Article III also identifies certain cases in which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction.9
If Congress has the power to create the federal districts and organize them it has the power to destroy them. As such the inferior courts cannot be deemed co-equal to Congress or the Executive branch. Merely placing them under the control of the Supreme court does not make them immune from political machinations.
The point of this is to ask the question do we have a working neutral judiciary that provides equitable and consistent decision based on law or are our courts now political entities which are being allowed to run unchecked by the one court empowered by the Constitution to manage them. If it is the latter, what can be done about that.
I shared this post across several usenet newsgroups.
https://soc.culture.israel.narkive.com/aX52i8nS/ethics-dunces-more-than-150-former-state-and-federal-judges