What Is Truth About Arrests of Judges?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns misinformation and disinformation in media reports on the two judges arrested by the FBI. Former New Mexico state Judge Joel Cano, his wife, Nancy Cano, and Wisconsin state Judge Hannah Dugan were charged with “obstructing the arrests of illegal immigrants.” Judge Cano resigned his position as a judge, and Judge Dugan has been temporarily removed from the bench.

As usual, the lamestream media has twisted the facts. Fred Lucas at The Daily Signal discussed the “three claims about the arrests and how they compare with the facts.” 

1. An Attack on the Judiciary and the Separation of Powers

Numerous Democrats were quick to speak out about the arrest of Dugan on the grounds of a Milwaukee courthouse. They were not as quick to jump on Cano’s arrest, since Cano resigned before he was arrested.

However, as far as the “separation of powers” of the branches of government goes, the judges were not federal judges, and the separation applies to the federal branches of government. Further, it’s not unusual for the federal executive branch to bring criminal charges against judges in the judiciary. For that matter, members of Congress – part of the legislative branch – have also been prosecuted for alleged violations of the law….

However, neither case is novel….

Federal law prevails over state law, a matter that was settled in the Civil War…. Federal law can be enforced against local officials….

Presuming that obstructing immigration enforcement is no different from obstructing other laws, in recent years, several state-level judges faced federal prosecutions spanning the first Trump term and through President Joe Biden’s term….

Judges can be federally prosecuted for any number of reasons. Last year, a Nevada state judge was indicted for allegedly misusing funds. Trump pardoned her last week. In 2023, federal prosecutors charged an Arkansas state judge with bribery and wire fraud, among other charges. In 2018, a Texas state judge was charged with bribery and obstruction of justice. That same year, a West Virginia Supreme Court justice was indicted on charges that included mail fraud and wire fraud.

2. A Violation of Justice Department Policy

Former federal prosecutor and MSNBC legal analyst Andrew Weissmann asserted that Trump administration officials publicly discussing the Wisconsin arrest is a violation of Justice Department policy. He didn’t outline the policy specifically but suggested that DOJ officials shouldn’t discuss a pending case.

When the Wisconsin judge was arrested, FBI Director Kash Patel posted on X, “No one is above the law.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi provided a play-by-play of the arrest during a Fox News interview….

Weissmann said neither Patel nor Bondi should have talked about the arrest.

“So, there has been a violation here that we know for sure, and it is not the judge. That’s something that remains to be proved….”

An arrest is a long way from a conviction. And both judges are presumed innocent.

However, for years, it has been the norm for senior Justice Department officials, including the attorney general, U.S. attorneys, and high-ranking FBI officials, to issue public comments about notable arrests.

During 2024, the last full year of Biden’s administration, the Justice Department website shows there were more than 300 press releases about arrests, many of which included comments from U.S. attorneys, and in several cases, Attorney General Merrick Garland.

“Think of it another way. If the FBI showed up in this lady’s courtroom with an arrest warrant for bank robbery, and she helped that local guy, a bank robber, escape arrest by the FBI by sneaking him out of her courtroom, nobody would question that she had done wrong,” von Spakovsky said.

3. Puts a Chill on the Judiciary

“PBS NewsHour” White House reporter Laura Barron-Lopez reported the arrest could have a “chilling effect” on the judiciary….

As Barron-Lopez reported on the arrest, she said, “Judge Dugan was arrested on the grounds of a Milwaukee courthouse where she presides, according to the U.S. Marshals Office…. And so, that kind of spectacle … may be sending a chilling effect to others across the legal community.”

However, von Spakovsky said: “The only chilling effect is that you can’t obstruct and violate federal immigration law. If you don’t violate federal immigration law, then there is no chilling effect.”