https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/16/us/shelley-joseph-immigration-judge.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share
Judge Shelley Joseph has been charged with obstruction of justice for helping an undocumented immigrant escape detention. She and court officer Wesley MacGregor were accused of arranging for the undocumented man to escape out a back entrance of the courthouse. Massachusets has long been at the forefront of the sanctuary city movement because of its many laws and precedents that constrain ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). Yet the federal prosecutor in Boston, following the lead of Trump's US Attorney General, is cracking down on ICE resistance and chose to charge Judge Joseph. This is the first federal indictment of a judge in Massachusetts since 1787, and a sign of a coming fight against devolution. Liberal states have largely resisted the Trump administration on a variety of policies from environmental regulations to immigration policies, and this arrest shows a troubling possibility of federal retaliation.
1. Did Judge Joseph have a right to do what she did?
2. Does this case indicate growing resistance to devolution by the federal government? What are the repercussions of this case and how can state courts defend their independence?
I do not think Judge Joseph had a right to do what she did... Although she has the job and responsibility of being a judge, that does not giver her the power to help people illegally and unfairly for that matter - No matter who she is, she is breaking laws and has not right to do so. She is someone who is supposed to be helping the legal system and this persons case positively - help in this case, does not mean escape illegally... rather it is to follow the legal system and wait for their fair/deserved outcome. It was her choice to involved herself in this situation, and now she is forced to suffer the consequences. Furthermore, I think this case indicates a growing resistance to devolution by the federal government (to a certain extent), as the Federal level is getting involved rather than allowing Massachusetts to handle this issue on their own. Ultimately, state courts could better defend their independence by making it a point to handle in state issues on their own, rather than getting the federal level/government involved - however if necessary, the should step in.
ReplyDeleteNo, Judge Joseph did not have the right to do what she did. Regardless of concerns about ethics and moral duty, if she was ethically obligated to help him, personal politics must not be made to interfere in official duties. Regardless if she thinks she did the right thing, she was wrong to do it in her position; she did the crime and must now suffer the consequences. I do think we will see incidents like this more in the future, as have happened in the past (for instance, Kim Davis), but the fundamental principle that this is unjustified and should be punished remains. It is still the states' obligations to respect the federal government and its laws, and if they wish to pass their own state legislation they may do so. That still does not justify vigilante action.
ReplyDeleteJudge Joseph did not have the right to release an undocumented immigrant. Due to Trump's impeachment, the topic of "no one is above the law" has been gaining a lot of attention, so even though Judge Joseph may have had good intentions, she ultimately broke the law and has to be punished for it. It is her job to protect the law and she did the opposite. This case will likely cause outrage and support for Joseph from the far left, and anger from the far right, as immigration is a very bipartisan issue. The growing resistance to immigration policies may eventually cause changes to federal policies, however until that happens, state courts have to respect and follow the federal law.
ReplyDeleteIn this particular case, I think Judge Joseph should not have done what she did. The individual she released, Mr. Medina-Perez, indeed committed crimes worthy of punishment such as drug possession and drunk driving. However, the law is not set in stone—if it is unjust, we are obligated to protest it, and often that means civil disobedience. ICE detention centers need to be significantly reformed or removed, as current conditions violate human rights on several counts. On this note, I believe Judge Joseph's planned punishment of up to 25 years in prison is excessively severe, considering her benevolent intentions.
ReplyDeleteThough I support what Judge Joseph did, she did not have the right to help with the escape, especially as a judge. As a part of their job, judges are supposed to be nonpartisan in order to come up with fair sentencings in cases. Obviously no one can be completely nonpartisan, but they can at least choose not to act to favor one side or the other, and helping the undocumented immigrant escape is a very liberal thing to do, so I think she should be penalized somehow because what she did not only was illegal, but went against one of the requirements of being a judge. This case does indicate a growing resistance to devolution because they could have given her a different punishment that was not as publicized or extreme, but they chose to arrest her and get involved with something that the states are usually in charge of.
ReplyDeleteLike everyone has said, Judge Joseph did not have a right to do what she did. When she was acting as a judge, her duty is to fulfill that role even if she is against the proceedings. I believe there could be other ways that she could have supported the effort against deporting immigrants. But, as Kai said, her punishments come across to me as disproportionately severe, although this may be more of an indication that the jail time for certain crimes needs to be revised. I think in this situation, the best course of action for the state court to avoid public scrutiny is to say that they do not condone Judge Joseph’s actions. However, I do not believe this will stop the current administration from—for lack of better words—giving the Massachusetts courts a hard time over this. This case is an indication that the tension between more liberal states and the Trump administration exists and will not go away.
ReplyDeleteJudge Joseph has absolutely no right to do what she did. Her occupation is clearly stated in her name. She doesn't work for ICE she's a judge. In no way does a judge just say I'm going to help an illegal immigrant escape. All judges just don't have that responsibility.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think that Judge Joseph had to right to release an undocumented immigrant. While judges hold a lot of power, that does not allow them to be above the law or help people illegally and unfairly. While Judge Joseph had good intentions, she broke the law and as a judge, she is supposed to enforce and protect the law. She did not need to perform any illegal actions; she could have helped the immigrant in other ways that weren’t illegal. It is necessary for Judge Joseph to suffer the consequences of her actions. The divided government that we are currently living in today is directly impacting her punishment. Our conservative government involved themselves in this judge’s liberal actions, which helps to explain why her punishment is so severe. This case definitely indicates the growing tensions between liberal states and our more conservative government.
ReplyDeleteAs others have previously mentioned, I agree that Judge Joseph had no right to release the undocumented immigrant. As a judge, she is supposed to uphold the law and if she is found guilty of obstruction of justice, she should be punished accordingly. Despite all this, I do agree with Joseph's stance on immigration and her attempt to give immigrants a chance at seeking a better life in America, the main reason I believe why so many immigrants are illegally entering the US.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the other comments, I agree that Judge Joseph didn't have the right to release an undocumented immigrant. Although she had good intentions, she still committed an illegal act which has its repercussions. I think that while she did commit an illegal, her actions shouldn't distract from the real issue, which is the unfair treatment of undocumented immigrants in the United States. Better regulations should be in place to better the conditions of the ICE detention centers and the way the people are treated there. In terms of the second question, I believe that with the tensions surrounding immigration these days, the publicized arrest of Judge Shelley Joseph served to highlight the growing resistance to devolution by the federal government.
ReplyDeleteThere is a difference between a moral obligation and the right to do something. In this case, Shelley may have had the moral obligation to help the undocumented immigrant escape, she did not have the right to do so. In making this move, Shelley will most likely lose her job and possibly face criminal charges. Instead, Shelley should have stayed impartial and interpreted the law according to her viewpoint. This case is another prime example of the federal government asserting its power over the state governments. This may be as a result of states growing overconfident in their independence due to devolution, but I believe that this cannot be seen as resistance to devolution to the federal government. In this case, the federal government had clear jurisdiction and acted accordingly.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ankur's point above. although her moral intention was right, the actions in which she chose to carry it out were not technically. The government's decision wasn't wrong in this case which is hard to say because on the other hand, she had good intention. I feel like actions in Trump's presidency to bring up the conversation about devolution are the ones that should be tied to devolution. In this case, although it revolves about the same topic of immigration, it isnt a case which would support the act of devolution very well. I don't know the specifics of the case really, nor who the judge was, but as I see it here, the decision was valid moral intention was good, but devolution might not be too relatable in this sense.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI certainly do not think that Judge Joseph has the right to help an undocumented immigrant esacpe from detention as that completely violates what judges are established to stand for. Although, like mentioned previously in the comments, her intentions were ethically right, she let her emotions interfere with her duty which is not what judges should be acting upon. Judges are not supposed to be partial or impartial to the defendent and therefore the courts have every right to convict her of violating her duties and going against what the criminal justice system stands for. Even though her intentions were right, she acted in the wrong way, letting her personal thoughts and emotions get the best of her.
ReplyDeleteI think what Judge Joseph did was from the kindness in her heart and more people need to stand up against ICE. Unfortunately, as a Judge she did not have the right to help a man escape from the back entrance of the courthouse. As a member of the courthouse this was highly wrong on her part. As a judge she must not get involved in politics. Her actions, however, should definitely trigger others to take action upon this horrific law.
ReplyDeleteWhat she did was illegal therefore wrong. While SCOTUS does get to change judicial precedent, a lower level judge like her does not, and instead has to abide to current precedent. The current precedent is that we don't let people who break laws go free, and she should have stuck with that. On the question of devolution, the fact that she was arrested is a clear indicator that devolution is not an issue.
ReplyDeleteWhat Judge Joseph did was illegal. She went against the law and decided to free illegal immigrants. Although this is illegal, its good to stand up against ICE. However, we currently don't let law breakers go free and so she should have stuck with her goals. She also shouldn't have any take on political issues because she's a judge.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that Judge Joseph had the right to do what she did. Personal politics must not be made to interfere in official duties regardless of concerns about ethics and moral duty, if she was ethically obligated to help him. It is part of her job to be nonpartisan in order to come up with fair sentencing in cases. Despite this, the main issue is the unfair treatment of undocumented immigranst in the US. I do agree with Joseph’s stance on immigrants and she had nothing but good intentions to give immigrants a chance at seeking a better life.
ReplyDelete