A Massachusetts judge, Shelley Joseph, is facing misconduct proceedings for allegedly helping an undocumented immigrant evade federal immigration authorities. The case is similar to another one in Wisconsin, involving Judge Hannah C. Dugan, where both judges are accused of assisting migrants in avoiding arrest by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Background of the Case
The allegations against Judge Joseph stem from a 2018 incident in which she is accused of helping Jose Medina-Perez, an undocumented immigrant, avoid an ICE agent who was at the courthouse to arrest him. Medina-Perez had been deported twice before and was facing a third deportation during his court appearance.
As federal agents waited to take him into custody, Judge Joseph allegedly directed a court clerk to tell the ICE officer to wait outside the courtroom. Medina-Perez was then allowed to leave through a back door with the help of a court officer.
Charges and Legal Proceedings
The initial charges against Joseph were brought during the first term of President Trump, including conspiracy to obstruct justice, perjury, and other related offenses. However, in 2022, the Biden administration dropped the charges, allowing Joseph to submit herself to a professional conduct panel instead.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has now started misconduct proceedings, which could result in disciplinary actions, including the possibility of losing her judgeship.
During the hearing, which took place at the Newton District Courthouse and resumed in Boston, the attorney for the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct, Judith Fabricant, emphasized the importance of judicial integrity and impartiality.
One key moment in the case was a 52-second sidebar between Joseph and Medina-Perez’s defense attorney, David Jellinek. The content of this sidebar remains unclear, as it was not documented, and this failure to record the conversation is one of the violations Joseph is accused of.
The Defense’s Argument
Joseph’s defense attorney, Elizabeth Mulvey, argues that the judge was unaware that Medina-Perez exited through the back door and only intended to send him downstairs to meet with his attorney privately. She claimed that the judge had no knowledge of any plans to avoid the ICE agents and believed that ICE would handle the situation as they saw fit.
The Larger Context: Sanctuary Jurisdictions and ICE
This case comes amid a national debate on sanctuary cities and jurisdictions, where local authorities often limit cooperation with ICE to protect noncitizens from deportation.
Critics of such practices argue that they encourage illegal immigration, while others contend that these policies help foster trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement, encouraging people to come forward without fear of arrest.
What’s Next for Judge Joseph?
The misconduct proceedings against Judge Joseph are ongoing. A report detailing the findings and recommendations will be submitted within 30 days, which will be reviewed by the Supreme Judicial Court to determine whether Joseph will face any further disciplinary actions.
The case remains a significant test of how the judiciary will handle allegations of judicial misconduct in the context of the controversial policies surrounding immigration enforcement.
Judge Shelley Joseph’s case highlights the complex intersection of immigration law, local judicial autonomy, and federal enforcement. The decision made in this case will likely influence how judges in sanctuary jurisdictions approach similar situations in the future, especially concerning the cooperation between local courts and federal immigration authorities.
