In a dramatic escalation of tensions between federal immigration enforcement and state judicial authority, Wisconsin Circuit Court Judge Monica Isham has announced her intent to halt all court proceedings in Sawyer County’s Branch 2. Her decision comes in response to the recent arrest of fellow Judge Hannah Dugan by federal agents, and signals a deepening rift over the role that state judges may play in cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) actions. In an email sent to her judicial peers, ominously titled “Guidance Requested or I Refuse to Hold Court,” Isham warned that, absent clear directives and assurances, she will refuse to convene court sessions, placing her staff and community at risk from what she characterized as unconstitutional deportations and potential “concentration camp” detentions.
This article provides an in-depth, professional analysis of the events that precipitated Judge Isham’s ultimatum, the legal and constitutional questions it raises, reactions from federal authorities, implications for Wisconsin’s judiciary, and the broader national debate over immigration enforcement and judicial independence.
The Arrest of Judge Hannah Dugan
On Friday, federal authorities arrested Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan, a sitting state judge, on charges of obstruction of an official proceeding and concealing an individual to prevent discovery and arrest. According to a criminal complaint filed by the Department of Justice, Judge Dugan intervened during a routine misdemeanor hearing for Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a 30-year-old Mexican national facing battery charges.
After the hearing, Dugan allegedly instructed court officers to fetch her supervising judge’s card and then personally escorted Flores-Ruiz and his attorney through a restricted jury entrance—bypassing the public exit where ICE agents, along with officers from the FBI, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), were waiting to effect his arrest on an outstanding deportation order. Flores-Ruiz was accused of re-entering the United States illegally after having previously been deported, and ICE claimed he had already received due-process review by an immigration judge.
Dugan now faces federal felony charges that could carry substantial prison terms if she is convicted. Her arrest—which reportedly involved multiple law enforcement agencies converging on the courthouse—has shaken the Wisconsin legal community and prompted urgent debate over the proper relationship between state courts and federal immigration enforcement efforts.
Judge Isham’s Defiant Response
Within 48 hours of Dugan’s arrest, Judge Monica Isham of Sawyer County circulated a landmark email to all Wisconsin circuit court judges, asserting that she would refuse to hold any court in her branch unless the state Supreme Court or the Department of Administration issued explicit guidance on handling ICE’s presence in state courthouses.
Key excerpts from Isham’s email include:
“If there is no guidance for us and no support for us, I will refuse to hold court in Branch 2 in Sawyer County. I will not put myself or my staff—who may feel compelled to help me or my community—in harm’s way.”
“I have no intention of allowing anyone to be taken out of my courtroom by ICE and sent to a concentration camp, especially without due process, as BOTH of the constitutions we swore to support require.”
“Should I start raising bail money? If this costs me my job or gets me arrested, then at least I know I did the right thing.”
Isham’s invocation of “both constitutions” refers to her oath to uphold both the U.S. Constitution and the Wisconsin Constitution. By characterizing ICE detention facilities as “concentration camps,” she tapped into one of the most emotionally charged criticisms of contemporary immigration policy. Her willingness to risk removal from the bench demonstrates the depth of her conviction, and sets up a potential showdown between state judicial prerogatives and federal law enforcement mandates.
Constitutional and Legal Framework
The Supremacy Clause vs. State Judicial Oaths
Under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2), federal law generally takes precedence over conflicting state statutes and judicial directives. Federal courts have consistently held that ICE detention and deportation orders—once issued after due process before an immigration judge—are enforceable against violators, regardless of state or local objections.
However, state judges also swear oaths to uphold the state constitution. Wisconsin’s Constitution (Article I, Section 8) protects individual liberty and due process under state law. Judge Isham argues that facilitating ICE arrests could run afoul of those protections if she believes federal procedures have not adequately safeguarded the rights of the detained.
Courtroom Protections and Sanctuary Jurisdictions
Nationwide, certain jurisdictions have adopted “sanctuary” policies limiting local cooperation with ICE detainers, typically aiming to promote trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement. However, most sanctuary policies focus on police and jails, not on the judiciary. The question of whether a state judge may lawfully obstruct or refuse to assist federal immigration enforcement has rarely been addressed in the courts.
Some analysts contend that judicial immunity protects judges in the exercise of their official duties, but that immunity does not extend to actions that violate clear federal law or court orders. If a judge were to impede ICE agents who possess valid warrants or detainer requests, she could face contempt proceedings or federal obstruction charges—precisely the fate that befell Judge Dugan.
Federal Authorities Push Back
Following Isham’s announcement, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon criticized the ultimatum on social media, labeling it “problematic” and asserting that no state official is immune from federal law enforcement responsibilities. Border czar Tom Homan echoed that message in a weekend interview, stating that judges are “not above the law” and that refusal to assist ICE in removing convicted or charged criminal aliens crosses a “bright line.”
ICE officials have maintained that individuals subject to deportation orders have already received due process, including notice and a hearing before an immigration judge. The agency emphasized its statutory authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to apprehend and remove noncitizens who lack lawful status or have violated their terms of admission.
Broader Implications and Related Cases
The New Mexico Judicial Arrest
Judge Dugan’s arrest is not an isolated incident. Last month, New Mexico Judge Joel Cano and his wife were charged with harboring a suspected member of the Venezuelan-based Tren de Aragua gang—designated a terrorist organization by the Trump administration—as well as providing him firearms. Federal prosecutors allege Cano concealed the individual in his residence and aided him in evading immigration and criminal investigations. Cano’s case underscores the heightened scrutiny federal authorities are now applying to any perceived interference with enforcement actions.
Impact on State-Federal Relations
These high-profile arrests threaten to chill state court cooperation with federal agents. Judges nationwide may now face difficult decisions when balancing their perceived duties to protect individual rights against legal obligations to enforce federal warrants and orders. Some observers caution that widespread refusal to assist ICE could lead to jurisdictional gridlock, clogging state court dockets with unresolved cases and undermining the rule of law.
Reactions from the Legal Community
Legal scholars, bar associations, and civic leaders have weighed in on Judge Isham’s stance and the broader conflict it represents.
-
State Bar of Wisconsin: The bar’s ethics committee is reviewing whether Isham’s refusal to hold court could constitute judicial misconduct. Under Wisconsin Supreme Court rules, judges must “faithfully and impartially” decline from using their office for personal or private gain or to enable others to do so.
-
Constitutional Law Experts: Professor Linda Greenhouse at the University of Wisconsin Law School notes that no precedent directly addresses a judge’s refusal to facilitate a lawful arrest. “We may be witnessing the emergence of a new category of judicial protest,” she commented, “but the tension between state judicial independence and federal supremacy is not easily reconciled.”
-
Immigrant Rights Advocates: Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin have expressed support for judges who seek to protect vulnerable individuals from perceived overreach. They argue that ICE’s definition of “due process” often excludes critical rights guaranteed under state constitutions.
Meanwhile, conservative legal commentators warn that allowing any judge to unilaterally defy federal detainer requests could erode national sovereignty, compromise federal immigration objectives, and incentivize legal challenges that clog the courts.
Potential Consequences for Judge Isham
By publicly declaring her intention to halt court proceedings, Isham exposes herself to several potential repercussions:
-
Judicial Discipline: The Wisconsin Judicial Commission may initiate an investigation for alleged dereliction of duty or misconduct, potentially leading to suspension or removal under state law.
-
Contempt of Court: If federal agents present valid warrants in her courtroom and she refuses compliance, she could be held in contempt by a federal judge, facing fines or incarceration.
-
Criminal Charges: While judicial immunity offers broad protection for judicial acts, deliberately obstructing federal officers executing lawful orders could expose her to obstruction or interference charges.
-
Public Backlash: Constituents and local officials in Sawyer County may view her refusal to hold court as an abandonment of duty, particularly victims and litigants awaiting justice.
Despite these risks, Isham’s email indicates she views her actions as a moral imperative, even at the cost of her career.
Impact on Sawyer County and Wisconsin Courts
Isham’s refusal would effectively shutter Branch 2 in Sawyer County, delaying hearings for criminal defendants, family law matters, small claims, and other civil disputes. The backlog could cascade to neighboring counties, as litigants seek emergency relief or case transfers.
Clerks, bailiffs, court reporters, and staff face uncertainty about pay and safety. With no clear contingency plan from the state’s Administrative Office of the Courts, local officials are scrambling to identify substitute judges or relocate cases—at significant logistical cost.
Municipal leaders worry that delays in criminal trials could undermine public safety, allowing repeat offenders to remain free on bail. Civil litigants, including victims of domestic violence and landlords seeking eviction orders, may suffer irreparable harm if courts sit idle.
Historical Precedent and Judicial Protest
While judges have occasionally resigned or refused to take particular cases on ethical grounds, outright refusal to hold all court sessions is virtually unprecedented in U.S. history. During the civil rights era, some southern judges openly defied federal desegregation orders—prompting federal intervention and, in extreme cases, the deployment of the National Guard. However, those conflicts centered on state statutes that directly contradicted federal law, rather than on immigration enforcement actions embedded in federal statutes.
Judge Isham’s protest aligns more closely with instances of “judge strikes” in authoritarian regimes, where entire judiciaries have refused to convene rather than legitimize controversial state actions. The U.S. judiciary has traditionally viewed its role as distinct from political protest, making Isham’s stance all the more remarkable.
Balancing Immigration Enforcement and Judicial Independence
At the heart of this controversy lies a fundamental tension: the imperative to enforce federal immigration laws, and the equally vital duty to preserve the integrity and independence of the state judiciary.
-
Enforcement Imperative: ICE’s mission to remove noncitizens who commit crimes or violate immigration laws rests on statutory authority and judicial review. Detainers and arrest warrants are tools designed to protect public safety and uphold the rule of law.
-
Judicial Independence: Judges must remain free from external pressures—executive, legislative, or popular—to ensure fair and impartial adjudication. If judges perceive that federal actions infringe upon constitutional protections or overstep due process, they may feel compelled to protest.
Finding a workable middle ground requires clear intergovernmental protocols. Potential solutions include:
-
Statewide Directive: The Wisconsin Supreme Court could issue binding guidance on how judges should handle ICE requests, clarifying responsibilities and safeguarding both judicial integrity and compliance with federal law.
-
Designated Liaison Offices: Establishing court-based “immigration coordination units” staffed by legal experts to review detainer requests and ensure due-process compliance before facilitating arrests.
-
Legislative Action: The Wisconsin Legislature could enact statutes defining the narrow circumstances under which state courts must—or must not—assist federal immigration enforcement, reducing ambiguity for individual judges.
Absent such measures, individual judges will continue to face agonizing conflicts between their oaths and federal expectations.
Conclusion
Judge Monica Isham’s vow to suspend court proceedings in protest of Judge Hannah Dugan’s arrest thrusts Wisconsin’s judiciary into uncharted territory. The standoff underscores the increasingly fraught intersection of immigration enforcement, federal supremacy, and state judicial independence.
As the legal community, elected officials, and the public await further guidance from the Wisconsin Supreme Court and the Department of Administration, the fate of Branch 2 hangs in the balance—along with the principle that every litigant, criminal or civil, deserves timely access to justice.
Meanwhile, Judge Isham’s actions will be closely watched nationwide as a potential flashpoint in the broader debate over sanctuary policies, the reach of ICE, and the limits of judicial protest. Whether her defiance will prompt constructive dialogue and policy reform, or spiral into chaotic courtroom closures and disciplinary battles, remains to be seen.
For now, the people of Sawyer County and the state of Wisconsin confront a stark reminder that when constitutional duties collide, the path forward is anything but clear.
Adrian Hawthorne is a celebrated author and dedicated archivist who finds inspiration in the hidden stories of the past. Educated at Oxford, he now works at the National Archives, where preserving history fuels his evocative writing. Balancing archival precision with creative storytelling, Adrian founded the Hawthorne Institute of Literary Arts to mentor emerging writers and honor the timeless art of narrative.