Matter of Gilton Bain: When Criminal History Outweighs Family Ties in U.S. Immigration Law: Rules for Cancellation of Removal and the Role of Rehabilitation

Matter of Gilton Bain: When Criminal History Outweighs Family Ties in U.S. Immigration Law


The Matter of Gilton Bain is a significant and recently designated precedent in immigration law. The Board of Immigration Appeals issued its decision on February 6, 2025, and the Attorney General designated it as precedent on May 23, 2025. This decision clarifies how U.S. immigration judges must weigh positive equities, such as long-term residence and family ties, against a serious criminal record. Under this ruling, even individuals with deep roots in the United States can face removal if they cannot demonstrate genuine rehabilitation after recent criminal convictions. The Board emphasized the lack of rehabilitation in the face of recent criminal convictions, specifically noting the respondent’s recidivist offenses within a short timeframe in 2019 and 2020. Without clear evidence of reform, even the most compelling personal and family connections may not outweigh the negative impact of such conduct.

Case Overview: Who Was Gilton Bain?

Gilton Bain, a citizen of the Bahamas, entered the United States as a teenager in 1998 and became a lawful permanent resident in 2011. Over more than two decades, he established a life in the U.S., with significant family ties, including several U.S. citizen relatives. But between 2013 and 2020, Bain was arrested and convicted for multiple crimes, including six counts of selling or delivering controlled substances like cocaine, fentanyl, and heroin.

When the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiated removal proceedings, Bain applied for cancellation of removal—a form of relief that, if granted, would have allowed him to remain in the U.S. despite his criminal record.

The Legal Hurdles: Statutory and Discretionary Requirements

Cancellation of removal under section 240A(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is a two-step process:

  1. Statutory Eligibility:
    • Continuous residence in the U.S. for at least 7 years
    • Lawful permanent resident status for at least 5 years
    • No aggravated felony convictions
  2. Discretionary Relief:
    Even if eligible, the applicant must show they “merit” relief as a matter of discretion.
    Judges must balance positive factors (like family ties and long-term residence) against negative factors (like criminal history).

What Were Bain’s Positive Factors?

  • Long-term U.S. residence: Lived in the U.S. since 1998
  • Lawful permanent resident: Since 2011
  • Family ties: Multiple U.S. citizen relatives, including children
  • Employment history: Worked as a carpenter and held several jobs
  • Desire to improve: Expressed a wish to better himself and support his family

The Negative Factors: Criminal History and Lack of Rehabilitation

  • 2013: Arrested for possession of MDMA (case dismissed after drug court program)
  • 2018: Convicted for driving without a valid license
  • 2019-2020: Convicted of six counts of selling or delivering controlled substances (cocaine, fentanyl, heroin) across four separate occasions

Most importantly, Bain did not present any evidence of rehabilitation:

  • No participation in drug or rehabilitative classes while incarcerated
  • No documented efforts to address his criminal behavior
  • No letters, certificates, or testimony demonstrating reform

Why Did the Board Deny Relief?

Criminal history was recent, repeated, and serious.
No evidence of rehabilitation—a critical requirement for discretionary relief when a criminal record is involved.
Positive factors, such as family ties and long residence, were outweighed by the negative factors.
Hardship arguments (to himself or his family) could not overcome the seriousness of his ongoing criminal conduct.

Key Quote from the Decision:
“A respondent with a criminal record is generally required to present evidence of rehabilitation to warrant relief as a matter of discretion.”

Legal Lessons: What Does This Mean for Others?

  • Rehabilitation Is Essential: If you have a criminal record, you must show documented efforts at reform—rehabilitation classes, therapy, community service, or any steps toward positive change.
  • Recent and Repeated Crimes Are Especially Damaging: Crimes committed shortly before your hearing, or a pattern of offenses, are viewed as major negative factors.
  • Family Ties and Hardship May Not Be Enough: While strong family connections and hardship to loved ones are important, they rarely outweigh a serious, recent, and unaddressed criminal history.
  • Finality of Convictions: Immigration authorities cannot ignore or “look behind” a conviction unless it has been vacated or overturned by the criminal court.

Practical Takeaways for Immigrants and Advocates

  • Document rehabilitation: Save certificates, letters, and records of any rehabilitative efforts.
  • Seek legal advice early: Explore all options, including post-conviction relief or alternative forms of immigration relief.
  • Understand the burden of proof: You must prove not only eligibility but also that you deserve a second chance.
  • Prepare for a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis: Judges will weigh all factors, but serious criminal records require “unusual or outstanding equities” to tip the balance in your favor.

Conclusion

The Matter of Gilton Bain is a cautionary tale for anyone facing immigration proceedings with a criminal history. It underscores that positive life factors—no matter how compelling—can be overshadowed by serious, recent, and unaddressed criminal conduct. For those seeking a second chance in the U.S., genuine and documented rehabilitation is not just helpful—it’s essential.


If you or someone you know is facing removal proceedings, consult an experienced immigration attorney to discuss your options and how best to present your case.

Download Matter of Bain

Posted in Cancellation of Removal, Family ties, rehabilitation | Leave a comment

Juan Paramore’s Story: A Hypothetical Portrait of How GOP Cuts Sacrifice Healthcare to Fund Billionaire Tax Breaks

Juan Paramore is a hypothetical composite based on the real-world impacts of the Republican “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” His story illustrates how cutting Medicaid to fund tax breaks for the wealthy destabilizes families, communities, and public health.

The Republican Bill’s Crux: Trade Safety Nets for Tax Cuts

The GOP’s legislation, narrowly passed by the House on May 22, 2025, does two things:
1. Slashes Medicaid by $700 billion over a decade, targeting states that cover undocumented immigrants.
2. Permanently extends Trump-era tax cuts for the wealthy, including:
• A $90,000 annual tax break for households earning over $1 million.
• A corporate tax rate cut from 21% to 15%.
• Elimination of taxes on gun silencers and inheritance taxes for ultra-wealthy estates.

The trade-off is stark: Gut healthcare for vulnerable populations to fund tax breaks for billionaires. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the bill will:
Leave 8.6 million more people uninsured by 2034.
Add $2.3 trillion to the national debt, triggering automatic Medicare cuts of $500 billion starting in 2026.

How This Targets People Like Juan

Juan, a 45-year-old undocumented immigrant with bladder cancer, relies on Illinois’ Health Benefits for Immigrant Adults (HBIA). The Republican bill penalizes Illinois for programs like HBIA by:
Cutting federal Medicaid reimbursements by 10% (from 90% to 80%).
Forcing Illinois to choose: End HBIA or lose $3.2 billion annually to maintain Medicaid expansion for 770,000 low-income residents.

Result: Illinois terminates HBIA on July 1, 2025. Juan loses coverage for:
Chemotherapy ($12,000/session).
Medications ($450/month).
Preventive care to catch cancer recurrence.

Meanwhile, the bill’s tax cuts give the wealthiest 1% an average $175,000 annual windfall.

Would the Republican Bill Pass Constitutional Muster?

A key legal question is whether Congress can penalize states for using their funds to provide health coverage to immigrants by reducing federal Medicaid matching rates. The Supreme Court’s most relevant precedent is National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius (2012), which struck down the ACA’s threat to withdraw all Medicaid funds from states refusing Medicaid expansion as unconstitutionally coercive. However, the Court left open the door for Congress to attach less sweeping conditions to federal funding.

In this case, the Republican bill does not threaten all Medicaid funding. Instead, it reduces the federal match for the ACA expansion population from 90% to 80% for states that cover immigrants with their own money. While this creates significant financial pressure, courts have generally upheld conditional federal spending as long as states retain a meaningful choice and the penalty is not so severe as to amount to “a gun to the head.”

Some legal scholars and advocates argue that penalizing states for how they spend their funds, outside the federal Medicaid program, may push the limits of Congress’s authority. However, given the Supreme Court’s past rulings, the bill would likely survive a constitutional challenge because it does not cross the line into outright coercion. States could, in theory, repeal their “trigger laws” or end their immigrant coverage to avoid the penalty, meaning the federal government is not compelling them with an all-or-nothing ultimatum.

Bottom line: The measure is harsh and controversial, but the courts would probably uphold it under current law.

No Societal Benefit—Only Harm

Safety net cuts don’t “save money”—they shift costs:
Hospitals absorb uncompensated care: UI Health’s charity care only covers 40-60% of costs for uninsured patients like Juan.
Public health risks rise: Delayed care leads to costlier emergencies. Bladder cancer survival rates plummet without early detection.
Workforce instability: Juan’s $18/hour job installing carpets—critical to his family’s survival—is jeopardized if he can’t treat his cancer.

Tax cuts for billionaires don’t trickle down. Studies show wealthier Americans hoard savings rather than reinvest them.

Meanwhile, Medicaid cuts:
Strain state budgets (Illinois faces a $815 million annual shortfall).
Increase poverty: 7.6 million more Americans lose Medicaid, while SNAP cuts leave families food-insecure.

A Political Choice, Not Fiscal Necessity

Republicans claim these cuts target “waste,” but the math reveals the truth:
$3.8 trillion in tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.
$1 trillion in safety net cuts (Medicaid, SNAP, child nutrition).

This isn’t budgeting—it’s wealth redistribution. Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) noted that the bill’s debt increase triggers Medicare sequesters, harming seniors to fund tax breaks.

Juan’s Future Without HBIA: What Changes?
With HBIA:
• Chemotherapy is fully covered.
• Cancer monitoring happens every 3 months.
• Juan can maintain his job and keep working.
• He’s able to send money to his kids in Mexico.
Without HBIA (after the Republican bill):
• Chemotherapy costs $12,000 per session—completely unaffordable for Juan.
• He can only get cancer care in emergencies, not for regular monitoring.
• He risks losing his job if symptoms return and he can’t work.
• Medical debt will pile up, and he won’t be able to support his family.
Juan says:
“This bill isn’t about saving money—it’s about sacrificing people like me to make rich people richer. Cutting healthcare won’t fix the debt. It’ll just leave bodies in its wake.”

The Bottom Line

The Republican bill prioritizes billionaire tax cuts over healthcare for vulnerable populations. For every Juan Paramore who loses coverage, millionaires gain $90,000 yearly. Safety nets aren’t “handouts”—they’re investments in stable families, productive workers, and healthy communities. Stripping them away to enrich the wealthy isn’t fiscal responsibility. It’s cruelty disguised as policy.

Juan’s story is fictional but grounded in real data. For sources, see:
KFF Health News: https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/medicaid-immigrants-one-big-beautiful-bill-house-cuts-uninsured/
KFF (Medicaid Provisions): https://www.kff.org/tracking-the-medicaid-provisions-in-the-2025-budget-bill/

Posted in Medicaid Cuts & Immigrant Access in Illinois, Republican Healthcare Legislation, Undocumented Immigrants & Illinois Health Policy | Leave a comment

The Principled Man: Ancient Sacrifice, Modern Privilege, and the Lost Art of Choosing Between Opposites

The Principled Man: Ancient Sacrifice, Modern Privilege, and the Lost Art of Choosing Between Opposites

I. The Privilege of Principle in America

America stands nearly alone in history, offering its citizens material wealth and the rare opportunity to live by principle. Allan Bloom observes that the American teenager enjoys “the liberties hard won over the centuries by the alliance of philosophic genius and political heroism, consecrated by the blood of martyrs; he is provided with comfort and leisure by the most productive economy ever known to mankind.” Throughout this essay, I’m drawing on the work of Allan Bloom, a University of Chicago philosophy professor, whose famous book The Closing of the American Mind (1987) takes a hard look at how America’s tradition of principle, duty, and moral language is fading in today’s culture.

Taking our freedoms for granted is easy, especially when life feels safe and comfortable. Allan Bloom warns that this kind of security can make us indifferent, turning real values into just another set of options we can pick up or put down. That’s why it stands out when someone holds onto things like truth, duty, and honor—and why it matters.

II. Ancient Sacrifice: When Principle Wasn’t an Option

If we want to grasp what it means to stick to our principles, it helps to look back at the ancient world, when doing the right thing wasn’t just a nice idea, but sometimes a life-or-death decision. Back then, values like honor, duty, and truth weren’t just words people tossed around; they were serious business, and living by them could cost you everything.

Take Socrates, for example. He wasn’t just some philosopher spouting theories in the marketplace. When push came to shove, he had to choose between staying true to his beliefs or saving his skin. Instead of backing down, Socrates stood his ground—even though it meant drinking poison and paying the ultimate price. For him, living honestly and with honor and duty mattered more than living comfortably.

His death was not a tragic accident but a conscious affirmation that some things—honor, truth, duty, the soul’s integrity—are more precious than life itself.

Cato the Younger offers another luminous example. Instead of bowing down to Julius Caesar and accepting a government he thought was wrong, Cato decided he’d rather die than give in. By taking his own life, he made one final stand, showing he wouldn’t back down from what he believed in, no matter how bad things looked.

These were not men of convenience; they were men for whom principle, duty, and honor were a sacred responsibility, for whom the opposites of justice and injustice, honor and dishonor, were not negotiable. Their sacrifices remind us that the highest things—truth, justice, duty, honor—are only real when one is willing to pay the highest price.

III. Bloom’s Polar Opposites: The Forgotten Art of Serious Choice

To bridge the ancient world and our own, Bloom’s philosophy helps us see why these sacrifices matter today. Bloom, writing in the late twentieth century, later diagnosed a deeper problem at the heart of American life: we have forgotten how to recognize and choose between real, consequential opposites. He insists that a serious life only happens when we face and choose between the fundamental polarities that define existence—good and evil, democracy and aristocracy, reason and revelation, freedom and necessity, body and soul, self and other, city and man, eternity and time, being and nothing.

Opposites exist in the world. Bloom lists reason-revelation, freedom-necessity, democracy-aristocracy, good-evil, body-soul, self-other, city-man, eternity-time, being-nothing. Serious thought requires recognizing the existence of these opposites and choosing one over the other. ‘A serious life means being fully aware of the alternatives, thinking about them with all the intensity one brings to bear on life-and-death questions, in full recognition that every choice is a great risk with necessary consequences that are hard to bear.’

Modern America, cushioned by comfort and freedom, drifts into relativism. We start to see all values as equally valid “lifestyles.” The concepts of duty, honor, and love, rooted in sacrifice and heroism, are replaced by commitment, relationship, and lifestyle, which feel provisional and transactional. Where the ancients saw principle as a sacred duty and honor, we often see it as another preference. The ancients gave us some of the clearest examples of what it means to live—and die—by principle, duty, and honor. Socrates chose death over betraying his search for truth; Cato chose death rather than submit to tyranny. Their sacrifices remind us that choosing between opposites is not an abstract exercise but the heart of moral life.

IV. Lincoln’s Lyceum Address: Law as Political Religion

Long before Bloom’s critique, Abraham Lincoln saw this crisis of principle coming. In his 1838 Lyceum Address, he responded to a nation threatened by mob violence. He warned that the greatest danger to American democracy comes not from abroad but from within, when we lose reverence for law and principle. Lincoln didn’t mince words:

“Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well-wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution never to violate in the least particular the country’s laws; and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to support the Declaration of Independence, so too, to support the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, property, and sacred honor… Let reverence for the laws be breathed by every American mother to the lisping babe… let it become the political religion of the nation.”

Lincoln treated law as a sacred bond, not a tool for convenience. He called on Americans to anchor democracy in principle, not passion. His “political religion” anticipates the relativism and moral drift that Bloom would later diagnose.

V. The Gettysburg Address: Rewriting America’s Covenant

Twenty-five years after the Lyceum Speech, Lincoln faced another test of principle at Gettysburg. The Civil War had reached its bloody climax, and the nation stood fractured not just by bullets but by competing visions of freedom. In 272 words, Lincoln performed what historian Garry Wills calls “one of the most daring acts of open-air sleight-of-hand ever witnessed.”

“He altered the document [the Constitution] from within, by appeal from its letter to the spirit, subtly changing the recalcitrant stuff of that legal compromise, bringing it to its indictment.” —Garry Wills, *Lincoln at Gettysburg*

Where the Founders’ Constitution tolerated slavery, Lincoln returned to the Declaration of Independence, reframing America as a nation “conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” This wasn’t just memorializing the dead; it was a moral revolution. As Wills argues, Lincoln “remade America” by grafting the Declaration’s radical equality onto the Constitution’s flawed framework. The war became not just a fight to preserve the Union, but to fulfill its founding promise.

The genius of Lincoln’s brevity lies in its timelessness. He didn’t negotiate with the past—he redeemed it. “The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here,” he admitted, yet his words became scripture. By tying the soldiers’ sacrifice to the “unfinished work” of equality, he made principle inseparable from survival. In a nation still wrestling with its contradictions, Lincoln’s Address remains a masterclass in using words to describe reality and reshape it.

VI. Tocqueville’s Paradox and the Modern Illiberal Turn

Tocqueville, writing just before Lincoln’s speech, admired America’s democratic experiment but warned of a “soft despotism”—a tyranny of comfort and conformity where the majority’s will could stifle real dissent and flatten moral courage. This echoes Bloom’s later fear that prosperity breeds complacency without real principle, and the language of sacrifice, duty, and honor disappears.

To bring this discussion into the present, we turn to the historian Steven Hahn. In his widely discussed book Illiberal America: A History (published in 2024), Hahn, a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian, explores how the tension between America’s founding ideals and its long record of exclusion and conformity has shaped our national story. Hahn argues that illiberal currents—where principle, duty, and pluralism are sacrificed for conformity or power—have always been part of the American fabric, not just recent developments. He shows how both right and left have weaponized law and culture to enforce conformity and silence dissent. From election denialism to cancel culture, the refusal to recognize and choose between true opposites—truth and falsehood, justice and oppression—leaves democracy vulnerable to new illiberalism.

When we combine these perspectives, we follow the example of the Founding Fathers. The framers of the Constitution were not just politicians, but a rare blend of philosophers, lawyers, and statesmen—men who debated Locke and Montesquieu, drafted legal frameworks, and put those ideas into practice. Their achievement was to create a structure, like an immovable object, to withstand the moment’s passions and the shifting winds of history. Lincoln, a lawyer and self-taught philosopher-president, understood this. He insisted that reverence for the law should become our “political religion,” echoing the Founders’ belief that the Constitution, like the Bible in religion, must stand above the fray of daily politics—an ultimate duty, not a matter of personal choice. In this story, we see how the historian, the philosopher, the lawyer, and the politician each play a role in defending the fragile inheritance of principle, duty, and honor.

VII. The Burden and Hope of the Principled Man

To be a principled man in America today means standing in a unique historical position. We have the privilege to choose—and the responsibility to choose well. Bloom reminds us that the deepest opposites—good and evil, democracy and aristocracy, reason and revelation, freedom and necessity, body and soul, self and other, city and man, eternity and time, being and nothing—are not just abstractions. They form the very substance of a meaningful life. Most people can’t afford the privilege of principle, but those of us who can must act not just for ourselves, but for everyone who still hopes that truth, honor, and justice are more than words—they are the foundation of civilization itself.

When we see the law and the Constitution as the Founders and Lincoln did—not as tools for convenience or tribal gain but as a sacred inheritance—we reclaim the classical language of duty and honor—reverence for law, like reverence for scripture, anchors the nation. The ultimate test of our character is whether we treat that responsibility as optional or binding, whether we settle for comfort or choose to bear the burden of principle.

We don’t keep democracy alive with comfort or convenience. We do it with reverence for law, for truth, and the “awful responsibility” of living by principle. If we let that go, we risk exactly what Tocqueville warned about: a democracy that survives in form but dies in spirit, surrendering its soul to the tyranny of the moment.

As Bloom might say, the principled man is the last hope for a civilization that remembers what it means to believe, choose, and bear the burden of principle when it is a privilege. The example of Socrates, Cato, and the ancients stands as a challenge and an inspiration: to live—and if necessary, to die—for what is truly just, honorable, and true.

The principled man’s task is to bear this burden, to remember Socrates and Cato, to choose between opposites—good and evil, democracy and aristocracy (substitute oligarchy for aristocracy), reason and revelation, freedom and necessity, body and soul, self and other, city and man, eternity and time, being and nothing—and to keep alive the fragile inheritance of truth, justice, duty, and honor.

Posted in Civic Virtue & Leadership, Culture & Modernity, Philosophy & Ethics | Leave a comment

When Federal Immigration Enforcement Collides with State Judicial Authority

The cases of Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan and Massachusetts Judge Shelley Joseph represent a modern chapter in America’s oldest constitutional tension: federal enforcement power versus state judicial autonomy.

In 2018, during the Trump administration, Judge Joseph was charged with conspiracy and obstruction for allegedly helping an undocumented immigrant exit through her courthouse’s back door to avoid ICE agents. After a year-long investigation and her suspension without pay, the case dragged on for years. When the Biden administration took office, federal prosecutors ultimately dropped the charges, transferring the matter to the Massachusetts Judicial Conduct Commission.

Fast forward to 2025, and Judge Dugan faces similar charges after allegedly directing a defendant and attorney through an alternate courthouse exit. Unlike Joseph’s case, Dugan was swiftly arrested in her courthouse – handcuffed and photographed – a deliberate spectacle meant to send a message rather than simply enforce the law.

Before 2018, the notion of federal agents slapping cuffs on a state judge for courtroom decisions belonged to fiction, not American legal reality. Then, during Trump’s first term, Judge Joseph faced charges. Now, seven years later, Judge Dugan stares down the same prosecutorial barrel. Two cases, two Trump administrations, two unprecedented intrusions into a domain once considered sacrosanct. The historical ledger speaks its stark truth: in over two centuries of American jurisprudence, these prosecutions exist as lonely anomalies, curious artifacts of an era where the boundaries between federal power and judicial independence found themselves suddenly, dramatically redrawn.

How Judge Dugan’s Legal Team Will Argue Against the Charges

Judge Dugan’s legal team is likely mounting a defense based on judicial immunity, arguing that her actions were official judicial acts for which she cannot be prosecuted. They cite Supreme Court precedent on judicial immunity and have referenced the Trump immunity case to support their position that such immunity is an absolute bar to prosecution at the outset, not merely a defense at trial. They also argue that ICE’s administrative warrant did not compel her cooperation, that her conduct did not amount to obstruction or concealment under federal law, and that the defendant was arrested in public shortly after leaving her courtroom, undermining claims of intentional evasion. The defense further frames the prosecution as an unprecedented and unconstitutional attack on judicial independence.

Potential Impact on Federal-State Judicial Relations

Both cases highlight and may intensify the ongoing conflict between aggressive federal immigration enforcement and state judicial authority. The prosecutions have been widely interpreted as attempts to intimidate judges and deter them from exercising independent authority in their courtrooms. If such prosecutions succeed or even proceed to trial, they could chill judicial discretion, making judges more hesitant to question federal agents or assert control over their courtrooms. Conversely, if the cases are dismissed or judges are vindicated, it could reaffirm the constitutional limits on federal power and strengthen state and local autonomy in the face of federal immigration priorities. Ultimately, these cases will influence how far federal agents can go in state courthouses and how boldly state judges can assert their independence in the face of federal pressure.

The Fatal “Hiding” Requirement: Why The Concealment Charge Is Doomed

The prosecution’s case against Judge Dugan collapses when examining the essential “hiding” element required under 18 U.S.C. § 1071. Court documents reveal that federal agents accompanied Flores-Ruiz and his counsel in the same elevator as they descended to street level.

As the Justice Department’s manual acknowledges, “Section 1071 does not prohibit all forms of aid to a fugitive”. Courts have consistently held that “trivial or momentary delays generally do not satisfy the statute.” When federal agents maintain visual contact the entire time and complete an arrest just minutes later, there is no concealment under any reasonable legal interpretation.

Yes, she used a different door, but that’s NOT “hiding” under federal law (18 USC §1071). Purposeful action isn’t enough; the statute requires concealing someone “to prevent discovery.”

Flores-Ruiz walked through a standard courthouse door and was arrested 22 minutes later in the public hallways. That’s not concealment-it’s simply using Door B instead of Door A in her courtroom.

“She adjourned without consulting prosecutors/witnesses” ≠ Corrupt Intent

Judge Dugan’s case represents a direct clash between a judge’s statutory authority to control her courtroom and federal agents’ enforcement tactics.

Wisconsin law explicitly grants judges like Dugan the power to “impose reasonable limitations on access” and “maintain proper decorum and appropriate atmosphere” in their courts. Judges have the absolute right to adjust their calendars unilaterally- they need not consult prosecutors before adjourning.

When ICE agents disrupted proceedings with only an administrative warrant, Judge Dugan responded by exercising this legitimate state authority, directing them to follow proper channels through the Chief Judge.

Even today, the Chief Judge still has no straightforward procedure for handling administrative versus judicial warrants from federal agencies. At the same time, judges maintain their need to conduct court proceedings without disruption in the absence of genuine emergencies.

The Anti-Commandeering Doctrine: “Refusing to Help is Not the Same as Impeding”

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals provided clear guidance on this tension. In United States v. California, the court upheld California’s sanctuary state law (SB 54), concluding that “any obstruction caused by SB 54 is consistent with California’s prerogatives under the Tenth Amendment and the anticommandeering rule.”

Most crucially, the Ninth Circuit established a principle directly applicable to these judicial cases: “Refusing to help is not the same as impeding.” The court warned that treating noncooperation as obstruction could enable the federal government to “commandeer state resources in violation of the 10th Amendment.” When judges like Dugan choose alternative exits for defendants or decline to assist ICE agents without judicial warrants, they are refusing to help immigration enforcement, not actively impeding it.

The Constitutional Balance: Federal Power Meets State Sovereignty and the 10th Amendment

Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Judge Dugan will rely heavily on this foundational constitutional text if her case proceeds to trial. However, the legal deficiencies in the prosecution’s theory suggest dismissal during pretrial motions is likely. The facts and the law don’t support a conviction. Yet conviction doesn’t appear to be the federal government’s priority- the spectacle itself was the goal, and that’s already been achieved. Americans are now polarized and debating this case in increasingly extreme terms, with reasoned, moderate analysis emerging only occasionally amid the digital noise and partisan posturing.

The fundamental legal principle overlooked in immigration federalism debates is straightforward: the federal government lacks absolute authority to commandeer state resources for immigration enforcement. Despite claims of federal supremacy in immigration matters, the Tenth Amendment establishes clear constitutional boundaries. Federal detainers issued under 8 C.F.R. § 287.7 remain legally voluntary requests, not mandates, as established in Supreme Court jurisprudence, particularly in Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), where the Court recognized that while the federal government has significant authority over immigration, states retain sovereignty over their resources and personnel.

Illinois exemplifies this delicate constitutional balance. The Illinois TRUST Act prohibits local law enforcement from detaining individuals solely based on immigration detainers without judicial warrants, a position consistent with both the Tenth Amendment and Fourth Amendment protections. Governor Pritzker’s steadfast defense of these protections demonstrates the state’s commitment to constitutional federalism rather than obstruction. As Pritzker emphasized when defending Illinois’ policies: “We’re not preventing immigration enforcement; we’re simply requiring it meet the same constitutional standards that apply to all law enforcement.” This represents the proper constitutional equilibrium: federal authorities retain enforcement power but must exercise it within constitutional confines.

When federal immigration authorities respect these boundaries, cooperation improves. Data from Illinois jurisdictions shows higher crime reporting rates in communities where local authorities maintain clear separation from federal immigration enforcement. This historical pattern reveals that effective law enforcement thrives not through federal commandeering but through respect for the dual sovereignty system that has defined American federalism since the republic’s founding- the system judges like Dugan and Joseph seek to preserve.

Constitutional Protections and the Limits of ICE Authority

Despite claims that opposing ICE’s courthouse tactics is “un-American,” a closer examination of constitutional principles reveals the opposite. The Fourth Amendment’s protections extend to everyone within U.S. jurisdiction, regardless of immigration status- a principle affirmed repeatedly by the Supreme Court.

The distinction between administrative and judicial warrants lies at the heart of cases like Judge Dugan’s. Administrative warrants, issued by ICE itself without independent review, fundamentally differ from judicial warrants that require a neutral judge’s assessment of probable cause. In Arizona v. United States (2012), the Supreme Court emphasized that even federal immigration enforcement must respect constitutional boundaries.

This distinction is critical even for individuals who entered without inspection or have removal orders. Entry without inspection constitutes a civil violation, not a criminal offense, and doesn’t automatically grant ICE arrest authority without specific evidence of removability. Courts have increasingly rejected ICE’s reliance solely on databases to justify arrests, requiring case-by-case evidence as in Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas County (2014).

ICE’s authority also varies significantly between public and private spaces. While agents can make arrests in public with proper probable cause, this isn’t automatic- it requires specific evidence beyond mere suspicion of undocumented status. This distinction becomes particularly crucial in courthouses, as judges must balance federal enforcement against the integrity of state judicial proceedings.

Judicial review doesn’t obstruct legitimate enforcement- it prevents potential abuses like racial profiling or detention based on flawed data. The public safety argument for aggressive courthouse enforcement also falters when considering how such tactics deter immigrant communities from reporting crimes or appearing as witnesses, ultimately undermining rather than enhancing safety.

As the Supreme Court noted in Wong Wing v. United States (1896), constitutional rights for noncitizens aren’t optional-they’re fundamental to America’s legal tradition. When judges like Dugan and Joseph assert their authority against ICE’s administrative warrants, they’re not defying America’s values but upholding them in their purest form.

Sanctuary Cities: From Fugitive Slaves to Undocumented Immigrants

This tension between federal enforcement and local autonomy sounds strikingly familiar because it is. America’s first sanctuary cities emerged in the 1850s when Northern states implemented “personal liberty laws” to combat the federally enacted Fugitive Slave Act. Just as Northern judges and officials once refused to cooperate with federal slave catchers, today’s sanctuary jurisdictions limit cooperation with ICE.

As of May 2025, thirteen states and 220 cities and counties have claimed “sanctuary” status. Major metropolitan centers, including New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and San Diego, have established policies prohibiting local resources from assisting federal immigration enforcement. San Francisco proudly declares itself “a City and County of Refuge” – language that deliberately echoes ancient scriptural traditions of the sanctuary. At the same time, Chicago’s “Welcoming City Ordinance” ensures immigrants can only be detained under “minimal” circumstances.

Many of these sanctuary cities frame their position as reminiscent of abolitionist resistance, asserting that their “historical and moral tradition” is “rooted in the provision of sanctuary to persecuted people.” The legal justification remains remarkably consistent across centuries: federal authorities cannot commandeer state and local resources.

The historical parallels between Illinois’ resistance to federal overreach span generations with remarkable specificity. In 1850, the Chicago City Council passed a landmark resolution declaring the Fugitive Slave Act “unconstitutional” and “cruel and unjust,” formally stating that “the city and its officers would not enforce it.” Black Chicagoans organized their community patrols to watch for slave catchers, while white allies offered sanctuary in places like the “Abolition Church.”

Today’s resistance mirrors these actions with striking similarity. Governor Pritzker’s declaration that “Illinois stands as a firewall against Donald Trump’s attacks on our immigrant communities” echoes that 1850 council resolution. The 2017 TRUST Act, which prohibits local authorities from assisting ICE with civil immigration enforcement, functions almost identically to Chicago’s 1850 refusal to help federal slave catchers. Even the language remains consistent- both eras feature Illinois officials explicitly declaring they “will not cooperate” with federal enforcement they consider unjust. When Secretary Noem recently demanded Illinois abandon these protections, calling them “disastrous” and “unconstitutional,” Pritzker’s administration responded by reaffirming the same constitutional principle that Northern states asserted against the Fugitive Slave Act: federal authorities cannot commandeer local resources to enforce policies that violate a state’s moral and constitutional principles.

Former Federal Judge Gertner’s Insight

Former federal judge Nancy Gertner incisively frames this tension:

“I think that Joseph was the canary in the coal mine. It was an early sign of what she sees as a pattern of federal overreach worsening.

This is a federal government that does not understand that there are two authorities: the state and the federal government. The federal government cannot intimidate or command state proceedings to accomplish its will.

Whatever a judge does within the four corners of her courtroom is her domain. If ICE wants to wait for people outside the courthouse, that’s fine. But do they have to be hovering inside? Do they have to arrest a witness or defendant in the middle of a trial? The answer is no. The republic will still stand if ICE respects the state bench and procedures.”

The Spectacle of Enforcement in the Digital Age

What distinguishes today’s federalism conflicts from historical precedents is their visibility. When Judge Dugan was arrested in her courthouse, the images spread instantly across social media. This visual spectacle transforms legal questions into emotional flashpoints, eliminating nuance in favor of polarization.

What crosses a judge’s mind in that crystalline moment when federal power collides with judicial autonomy? The click of metal on wrists that moments before had wielded a gavel with authority; the flashbulbs capturing her perp walk through her courthouse; the knowledge that her face would be splashed across X as either traitor or patriot before sundown. This isn’t abstract constitutional theory – it’s the soul of America wrestling with itself in real-time, with Dugan’s body and career as the battleground. These rebels in robes – Dugan and Joseph – stand as the latest incarnations of America’s oldest tension, their human faces now emblazoned across our digital consciousness, forcing us to confront what it means when a judge decides to roll the dice on her career, her freedom, for a principle most Americans couldn’t name.

Beneath these clinical facts pulses the raw human drama of Judge Dugan’s experience – a lifetime on the bench advocating for the underdog, for compassion within justice, suddenly finding herself cast as either villain or hero in America’s endless immigration theater. That instant in her chambers when she realized federal agents were waiting like predators in her courthouse corridors – what cold electricity must have shot through her judicial spine? The sacred sovereignty of her courtroom, built through decades of careful rulings and measured justice, was suddenly invaded by outside force.

The portrait painted by her detractors-arrogant, imperious, a black-robed tyrant drunk on power who thought she’d outfox the feds and wink a criminal alien to freedom-crumbles when held against the flesh-and-blood reality. They can’t taste the copper tang of fear that must have flooded her mouth when those agents appeared in her domain without warning, protocol, or the Milwaukee courts having established any clear policy on how judges should handle these federal incursions. Those who’d paint her as some radical resister miss the point entirely. This wasn’t a revolution; this was reflex- the instinctive protection of judicial independence bred into American judges since Marshall stared down Jackson. The “criminal alien” these critics conjure bears no resemblance to the misdemeanor defendant standing before her, just as their cartoon empress-judge bears no resemblance to the flesh-and-blood Dugan, who likely never imagined her routine courtroom management would end with the cold snap of federal handcuffs.

Her crime wasn’t arrogance but adherence to the ancient compact between judge and court—that this space, these proceedings, have integrity that any authority, however powerful, cannot casually breach.

A common justification for aggressive immigration enforcement tactics is public safety concerns. While public safety can be a legitimate priority in some cases, the circumstances surrounding Eduardo Flores Ruiz’s arrest reveal different motivations. If Flores-Ruiz honestly presented an urgent threat to public safety, federal agents would not have allowed him to freely walk through the courthouse, ride in elevators, and move through public spaces. The agents maintained visual contact with him throughout this time, hardly the protocol for someone considered dangerous enough to warrant immediate detention.

The state court had already assessed any potential risk by granting Flores-Ruiz bail for his misdemeanor domestic-related charge, indicating local authorities didn’t consider him a significant threat to community safety. Federal agents could have easily waited until after his court proceedings concluded to make their arrest. This standard practice respects the judicial process. Instead, the timing and manner of enforcement suggest the spectacle itself was the goal. For those genuinely concerned about community safety, courthouse arrests like this have a chilling effect that discourages immigrants from participating in the justice system as witnesses, victims, or defendants, ultimately undermining the very public safety such tactics claim to protect.

Jessica Vaughan’s claim that these cases represent “shocking expressions of obstruction of legitimate immigration enforcement” exemplifies this emotional framing. Her assertion that judges are “supposed to uphold the law, not help people evade it” simplistically ignores the complex balance of dual sovereignty that has defined our constitutional system.

Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, frames the issue as judges creating “escape hatches” that establish “a double standard that can destroy the public faith in an impartial judiciary system.” Yet this perspective ignores the critical distinction courts have established between “refusing to help” and “impeding” – a legal principle central to these cases. Her analysis also overlooks the legal requirements for obstruction and concealment charges, including the “hiding” element that cannot be satisfied when federal agents maintain visual contact with the subject.

The American Bar Association’s Immigration Commission has criticized this analytical approach for ‘substituting selective anecdotes for comprehensive legal reasoning.’ Similarly, former federal prosecutors from Republican and Democratic administrations have noted that such commentary often lacks the precise legal analysis required when evaluating the elements of criminal statutes.

The Path Forward: Law Over Spectacle

The delicate balance of federalism requires vigorous federal enforcement and respect for state judicial autonomy. This isn’t a zero-sum game – the “republic will still stand if ICE respects the state bench and state procedures,” as Judge Gertner wisely notes.

Our constitutional system was deliberately designed to prevent one level of government from dominating the other. By following established legal principles rather than creating media spectacles, we can navigate these tensions in ways that preserve order and liberty. The anti-commandeering doctrine, proper application of concealment statutes, and respect for judicial independence provide roadmaps for resolving these conflicts without the polarization that threatens to fracture our republic.

The law, not emotional reactions to courthouse arrests captured on camera, offers our best path through these complex constitutional questions that have challenged America since its founding. This is where America’s soul gets forged, in the white-hot crucible of power clashing with conscience, without guaranteeing which side will prevail.

This tension isn’t a bug in our system – it’s a feature that preserves local democracy and prevents federal overreach while still allowing for national policies. Rather than seeing this as obstructionism, we might view it as the constitutional checks and balances working exactly as designed.

Motion to Dismiss: Key Arguments

The motion to dismiss criminal charges against Judge Hannah C. Dugan rests on two main legal shields:

  • Judicial Immunity: Judge Dugan is protected from prosecution for her official acts. This centuries-old principle is a cornerstone of judicial independence and applies unless a judge violates someone’s civil rights—not at issue here.
  • Tenth Amendment: The motion argues the federal government cannot prosecute a state judge for official acts, as this would violate the Constitution’s separation of powers between federal and state authority.

Additionally, the motion contends:

  • The statutes cited by prosecutors (18 U.S.C. §§ 1071, 1505) do not clearly apply to state judges’ courtroom management.
  • Judge Dugan’s alleged actions—such as directing ICE agents or leading a defendant through a non-public door—were within her official duties and did not actually prevent the defendant’s arrest, as federal agents were present throughout the courthouse.
  • The court should dismiss the indictment before trial to uphold judicial immunity and avoid federal overreach into state judicial functions.

In sum, the motion frames this as a clash between federal power and the independence of state courts, urging the court to protect judicial autonomy from federal prosecution.

Posted in Anti-Commandeering Doctrine | Leave a comment

Judicial Commandments: Biblical Command Structures in Modern Legal Directives

The Court’s Holy Writ: Ancient Command Structures in Modern Jurisprudence

The Supreme Court’s May 16, 2025, ruling on the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) exemplifies the linguistic and philosophical architecture of command structures that began with “Thou shalt not” prohibitions in ancient religious texts. The distinction between negative commands (“Thou shall not”) and positive directives (“you shall facilitate”) manifests in the Court’s ruling, which creates a modern decalogue of procedural rights through a careful balance of prohibitions and affirmative obligations.

Biblical commandment structures demonstrate a clear preference for negative formulations. Eight of the Ten Commandments begin with “Thou shalt not,” representing what scholars call “factual negation” in Hebrew grammar. This negative structure isn’t merely stylistic but is essential in moral guidance. George E. Mendenhall, a renowned Old Testament scholar, explains that “a negative prohibition, by its specificity, singles out just one behavior as off-limits. Other options remain open.” This insight reveals the philosophical rationale behind negative commandments: they precisely identify prohibited behaviors while preserving freedom in all other respects.

The 613 commandments (mitzvot) in Jewish tradition comprise 248 positive commands and 365 negative prohibitions, meaning approximately 59.5% of divine commands take the negative form. This predominance of negative commandments established a lasting template for legal directives that continues to influence modern jurisprudence.

“Thou Shalt Not Summarily Remove”: The First Commandment
The Court’s primary negative injunction mirrors the biblical preference for prohibition over-prescription. As captured in the initial description, “Thou shalt not summarily remove under AEA” establishes a clear boundary that preserves due process while allowing flexibility in implementing that process. This negative structure reflects the virtue of negative specificity – prohibiting only what undermines constitutional rights rather than micromanaging administrative procedures.

Both negative and positive commands operate within what linguists call “deontic modality”-language that indicates whether a proposition is obligatory or permissible according to normative standards such as law, morality, or convention. Deontic modal expressions evaluate propositions against “some standard of ideality,” exactly what the Court accomplishes through its prohibitory language.

“Nor Deny Habeas Rights”: The Second Commandment
This prohibition on denying habeas corpus rights carries the weight of constitutional scripture. The Court’s “thou shalt not” approach to habeas corpus exemplifies how negative commands establish non-negotiable boundaries around fundamental rights. Negative commands in the Bible “precisely identify prohibited behaviors while preserving freedom in all other respects” – here, preserving the essential freedom to challenge detention.

“No Removing Class Members Till Fifth Circuit Speaks”: The Third Commandment

This temporal prohibition demonstrates how negative commands can create procedural safeguards through restraint. The Court’s order that no removals proceed until the Fifth Circuit reviews the case illustrates the same principle found in biblical prohibitions: establishing clear boundaries while preserving administrative discretion within those boundaries.

In legal contexts, the distinction between negative and positive commands manifests in the difference between prohibitory and mandatory injunctions. A prohibitory injunction “forbids a party from performing an act” or “seeks to preserve the status quo,” while a mandatory injunction “directs a person to perform certain acts.” Courts typically show greater reluctance to issue mandatory injunctions, granting them only in “extraordinary circumstances” or when the “facts are clearly favorable toward the moving party.” This preference echoes the biblical tendency toward negative commands, suggesting that prohibitions may be inherently more straightforward to enforce and less intrusive.

Notice Must Be Clear and Timely”: The Fourth Commandment
This affirmative obligation shifts from prohibition to prescription, illustrating how positive commands become necessary when mere restraint is insufficient. The Court’s insistence on clear and timely notice parallels the minority of biblical commandments structured as positive obligations. A mandatory injunction must be “least oppressive while still protecting the plaintiff’s rights,” indicating the greater burden and scrutiny placed on positive commands in legal contexts.

Christian scripture similarly categorizes commands into negative (what not to do) and positive (what to do). Interestingly, the negative commands “are basically canceled out by obedience to the positive commands,” suggesting a complementary relationship between prohibitions and affirmative duties-exactly what the Court attempts to accomplish in balancing its prohibitory and mandatory directives.

The Language of Authority: From Stone Tablets to Legal Briefs
The evolution from biblical prohibitions to modern judicial directives reveals the enduring power of command structures. The ruling demonstrates both the “thou shall not” negative commands predominant in religious texts and the “you shall facilitate” affirmative obligations necessary for administrative governance.

The Court’s order – with its blend of prohibitory and mandatory language – exemplifies “the art of command language that lies not merely in what is required or forbidden, but in choosing the most appropriate formulation for each specific context.”

“Obey, or Face Justice”: Divine and Judicial Enforcement
The concluding warning about consequences for disobedience completes the parallel between biblical and judicial commands. Just as divine commandments carried supernatural penalties, the Court’s orders carry the weight of contempt proceedings. This enforcement mechanism transforms abstract principles into concrete obligations, ensuring that both negative prohibitions and positive duties translate into real-world compliance.

Ancient Wisdom in Modern Governance
The Supreme Court’s AEA ruling demonstrates how linguistic and philosophical patterns of ancient command structures continue to shape contemporary governance. The preference for negative commands when establishing boundaries, coupled with positive obligations when procedural justice demands action, reveals the enduring wisdom of balanced command structures.

The “thou shalt not” formulations dominating biblical texts find their modern expression in judicial prohibitions against administrative overreach, while the necessary “you shall facilitate” obligations ensure that mere restraint doesn’t undermine justice through procedural neglect. This judicial decalogue – prohibiting summary removals, protecting habeas rights, requiring adequate notice, and threatening consequences for noncompliance – shows how ancient command structures remain essential to preserving both order and liberty in democratic governance.

Posted in Due Process | Leave a comment