MILWAUKEE, Wis. — Former New Jersey Governor and federal prosecutor Chris Christie weighed in Sunday on the controversial arrest of a Milwaukee judge accused of helping a criminal illegal migrant evade Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.
Speaking during a television appearance, Christie said that while the judge “overstepped her bounds,” he questioned whether a federal indictment and arrest were necessary, considering the suspect was apprehended shortly after leaving the courtroom. “I don’t know that that’s something that I would have found necessary to do,” Christie said, emphasizing that the Justice Department appears to be sending “a very, very aggressive message.”
Key Points
- Former Gov. Chris Christie said the Milwaukee judge “overstepped” but questioned the need for a federal indictment.
- The case involves obstruction and concealment charges for aiding a migrant with an active ICE warrant.
- Legal experts say judicial immunity arguments could play a major role in the case’s outcome.
Legal questions surround judge’s actions
The incident occurred when the judge allegedly interfered with ICE agents attempting to detain a man wanted on a misdemeanor domestic violence charge. Christie explained that although the agents’ presence in the courtroom was “aggressive,” it was legal, and their tactics were appropriate for the situation.
Well, Well, it’s a very aggressive way of doing things. But look, there’s nothing improper about it. They had an administrative arrest warrant for this person. This person was, in fact, charged with a crime, misdemeanor, domestic violence, not something that any of us should ever take lightly. They knew that if this person was going to appear for their hearing here, that that was a place they could get them.
All those things, I think, are appropriate law enforcement steps for them to take. The problem here is that everybody is ratcheting up the heat on this. They accomplished what they wanted to accomplish, Martha. They arrested the man they wanted to arrest. Now, going after this judge now, I think, raises a whole new level of questions.
As Sarah put it, the Trump immunity decision for this administration may giveeth and takeeth away here because giving that broad immunity to the President, you can be sure that the judge’s lawyer is going to be arguing that a judge is entitled to similar immunity. The problem with what the judge did here was she put herself in the middle of that situation where she had no jurisdiction or authority to do so.
-Chris Christie
Former Trump Justice Department spokesperson Sarah Isgur noted that the charges—obstruction and concealment—require proving the judge actively prevented law enforcement from fulfilling their duties. Isgur added that while judges are not immune from prosecution, a recent Trump-related immunity ruling could complicate efforts to criminally charge a sitting judge for acts taken on the bench.
Christie further pointed out, “The problem with what the judge did here was she put herself in the middle of that situation where she had no jurisdiction or authority to do so.”
Political and legal implications mount
According to Christie, this incident highlights the tension between local courts and federal immigration enforcement. “It was a federal matter. She is a state court judge,” he said, stressing that judges must be cautious not to interfere with federal proceedings.
Both Christie and Isgur agreed that the Justice Department’s aggressive posture may set a precedent for future cases involving judicial actions in immigration matters. Meanwhile, the debate continues over whether the judge’s conduct, while questionable, rises to the level of criminal obstruction.
Pam Bondi, a former Florida Attorney General, defended ICE’s actions, arguing it is safer to apprehend suspects inside a controlled environment like a courtroom.
The arrest of a Milwaukee judge over aiding an illegal migrant’s escape now faces intense legal scrutiny and political debate.