The recent arrest of a Milwaukee state court judge has raised serious legal and constitutional concerns. In this commentary, I break down the core allegations, explain why the criminal case appears tenuous both factually and legally, and place these developments in the broader context of escalating attacks on the judiciary. As we’ve seen in other institutions standing up to Donald Trump, this case seems designed to intimidate rather than uphold justice. Here’s my take on what’s happening — and why it matters.
–Andrew
TRANSCRIPT
Hi,
I wanted to jump on and talk about the arrest and criminal complaint involving a state court judge in Milwaukee — and share my take on it.
First, the main allegation appears to be that the judge had a defendant in her courtroom and allowed him to leave through a side door instead of the main one. The DEA and FBI claim this made it harder for them to arrest him. However, according to the criminal complaint, agents saw the defendant outside the courtroom with his attorney, and later outside the courthouse, where they arrested him.
So, it’s not entirely clear that the judge’s actions were intended to help him evade law enforcement — especially since he was still visible and ultimately apprehended.
It’s very hard to look at this case and not see it as part of a broader assault on the judiciary, particularly as judges continue to stand up to actions taken by the administration.
There has been a violation here, but not by the judge — rather by Pam Bondi, the former Attorney General, and Kash Patel, the head of the FBI. Both have spoken publicly in ways that appear to violate longstanding DOJ rules. Kash Patel, for instance, tweeted denigrating remarks about the judge — a tweet he later deleted, presumably because someone at the FBI recognized it violated internal policies prohibiting public commentary on pending cases. Pam Bondi went on Fox News and essentially threatened judges, claiming they were out of control and would be prosecuted.
This is deeply concerning.
As for the charge against the judge, we’ll need to see more facts. But based on what’s known, it’s hard to imagine that anyone acting as an adult in the room thought this was a legally or factually sound move.
Factually, it seems extremely difficult to prove the judge’s intent — you would have to show she knowingly and materially obstructed a criminal investigation. Simply using one courthouse door over another, especially when the defendant was immediately apprehended, makes it very hard to argue there was an effort to obstruct justice.
It also doesn’t resemble classic cases of harboring a fugitive, where someone actively hides or protects a known fugitive to prevent apprehension. Here, the defendant remained in a public place — first in the courthouse, then just outside it — and was still in plain view of law enforcement.
Proving the necessary intent on the judge’s part seems highly unlikely. Additionally, the statute being used could be challenged as unconstitutionally vague, depending on how it’s applied here.
In short: this appears to be a tenuous legal and factual case.
But stepping back, the bigger picture is critical: why is this being done? It seems intended to have a chilling effect on the judiciary — part of a broader pattern of intimidating institutions that stand up to Donald Trump, whether it’s the courts, academia, or others.
I just wanted to give a quick explanation of my perspective on what’s happening with this Milwaukee case.
Take care and stay engaged.
