By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Over 130 former state and federal judges filed an amicus brief supporting Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan’s motion to dismiss charges of impeding government agents. The brief argues that prosecuting Dugan for actions within her judicial discretion constitutes an assault on judicial independence and threatens the ability of judges to perform their duties without fear of retaliation. This prosecution, they contend, sets a dangerous precedent by prioritizing federal interests over state court proceedings and jeopardizes the balance of federalism. The judges’ brief emphasizes the importance of judicial immunity and the potential chilling effect on judicial decision-making.
Read the original article here
The charging of a judge with obstruction of ICE actions has ignited a firestorm of protest from nearly 140 retired judges who see it as a direct attack on the judicial system’s independence. They’re deeply concerned that prosecuting a judge for actions taken within the context of her judicial duties represents a dangerous precedent, potentially chilling judicial independence and the ability of judges to act impartially.
This action is viewed as fundamentally undermining the separation of powers, a cornerstone of American democracy. The judges fear that if judges can be prosecuted for actions related to their official duties, particularly those involving the interpretation and application of law, it creates a chilling effect that discourages judges from acting in accordance with their conscience and oath. It also raises the specter of political influence over the judiciary, with the executive branch potentially using legal actions to target judges who make rulings that are unpopular with those in power.
The argument presented by these retired judges centers on the potential for abuse and the erosion of trust in the judicial system. They highlight the precarious balance between executive authority and judicial independence, arguing that this prosecution significantly tips the scales in favor of the executive. If judges fear prosecution for actions they take while exercising their duties, it is argued, it creates a situation where the judiciary becomes subservient to the other branches of government, potentially leading to erosion of fundamental rights and democratic processes.
Concerns have also been raised regarding the specific details of the case, particularly the question of whether the judge’s actions actually constituted obstruction. The actions taken might be interpreted as an attempt to maintain order and decorum within the courthouse rather than a deliberate effort to obstruct law enforcement. The retired judges may believe that the prosecution is an attempt to punish the judge for actions perceived as interfering with the executive branch’s agenda.
The retired judges’ statement is significant because it represents a powerful collective voice speaking out against what they perceive to be a grave threat to the judicial system’s integrity. Their unified condemnation carries considerable weight, given their extensive experience and insights into the judicial process. Their unified statement emphasizes the need for the protection of the judiciary from political interference, regardless of the perceived merits of the specific actions being taken in this case.
Another central point raised is the lack of similar outrage when members of the executive branch take actions that appear to impede or undermine judicial decisions. The concern here is that the current prosecution appears to be politically motivated, highlighting a potential double standard in the application of the law and the treatment of different branches of government. The lack of consistent application of the law, the retired judges argue, further erodes public trust in the institutions of government and the rule of law itself.
The intensity of the reaction from these retired judges underscores the seriousness with which they view this matter. They are not simply expressing disagreement with a particular ruling or action, but raising alarms about a far more fundamental threat to the independence and impartiality of the entire judicial system. They believe this case has the potential to set a precedent that dramatically reshapes the relationship between the judiciary and the executive branch, potentially leading to significant negative consequences for the American system of justice.
Furthermore, this situation raises questions about the appropriate balance of power between the branches of government. The retired judges might argue the prosecution represents an overreach of executive power into the realm of judicial authority, blurring the lines between distinct governmental functions and undermining the checks and balances intended to prevent tyranny. This fear of unchecked executive power is a potent one, particularly when viewed in the broader context of recent political events and controversies.
Ultimately, the retired judges’ united condemnation serves as a powerful call to protect the independence of the judiciary, a vital component of a functioning democracy. They are not simply defending a single judge; they are defending the principle of judicial independence itself, arguing that any erosion of this principle jeopardizes the fairness, impartiality, and integrity of the entire legal system. Their concerns resonate because they go to the very heart of how a democratic society protects itself from abuses of power.