What Would You Do?
A political, moral, and legal challenge
Donald Trump declares that “‘I Run the Country and the World”; Canada prepares to vote; ‘60 Minutes’ rebukes its corporate masters; and the Church prepares to elect a new pope.
But let’s start today with a personal moral and legal dilemma.
We know what a Milwaukee judge did when ICE agents came to her courtroom to arrest — and possibly deport — a Mexican national who was facing state battery charges. Judge Hannah Dugan refused to let them arrest the man in her courtroom; and then ushered the defendant out a side door. On Friday the judge was arrested and charged with two felonies.
We do not yet know all the details, including her side of the story, so we don’t know whether this was an act of civil disobedience or something else.
But let’s think through the challenge the story poses to the rest of us: What would we do in similar circumstances? What would we do if ICE showed up at our house/school/business/church with a warrant or an administrative order? Do we obey? Cooperate? Or do we resist?
As we come to the 100 Day mark of the Trump 2.0 presidency, these are no longer abstract questions. Whether we want it or not, this is a time for choosing — and if we are honest, the choices will not always be easy.
Happy Monday.
I know there are lots of claims on your time and resources. But please consider joining us as we navigate these extraordinary times.
Fair warning: You may disagree with me from time to time, because I never promised you a safe space. But I’ll always give it to you straight, sane, sober (although occasionally snarky).
But we can’t do this without you.
To the Contrary is a reader-supported publication. There are no investors. No sugar daddies. We’re not affiliated with any PACS. Or parties. Just me. And the dogs.
To receive new posts — including cross-posts, podcasts and videos— please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. (And I’m immensely grateful for your generous support.)
What choice would you make?
The NYT has a good summary of what happened in Milwaukee on Friday, when the FBI arrested Judge Hannah Dugan at the Milwaukee County Courthouse (where, in a previous life, I once worked.)
On April 18 [which was Good Friday] six federal officers arrived at the Milwaukee County Courthouse to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican national who was there for a hearing on battery charges.
Before the hearing, a lawyer told Judge Dugan that agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement were outside her courtroom, according to the criminal complaint against her. She called the situation “absurd” and left the bench.
Judge Dugan then spoke with the federal agents, telling them that they needed a judicial warrant and to speak with the chief judge of Milwaukee County.
One of the officers talked to the chief judge, Carl Ashley, who told the officer that there was a policy in the works about where in the courthouse ICE agents could arrest people. But he “emphasized that such actions should not take place in courtrooms or other private locations,” the complaint said. Chief Judge Ashley told the agent that hallways were areas where an arrest could be made.
As Mr. Flores-Ruiz and his lawyer left the courtroom, Judge Dugan told them, “Wait, come with me,” according to a courtroom deputy who overheard the interaction. The deputy saw her usher them through a door that leads to a “nonpublic” area of the courthouse, court records show.
Agents then saw Mr. Flores-Ruiz and his lawyer in a public hallway, and one agent entered an elevator with them and watched them leave the building, but did not immediately make the arrest, the complaint said. Other agents then arrested him on the street after a foot chase.
A week later, F.B.I. agents arrested Judge Dugan at the courthouse. She was charged with obstructing immigration officers and concealing someone to prevent an arrest.
Let’s put this into context. The incident in Dugan’s courtroom occurred after (1) the Trump Administration “mistakenly” renditioned a Maryland man to a notorious prison in El Salvador, (2) the US Supreme Court had ruled unanimously that he should be returned, and (3) just four days after Trump met with El Salvador’s president in the Oval Office and made it clear that he intended to defy the Court’s ruling.
At this point we don’t know whether Judge Dugan was, in fact, trying to help Flores-Diaz evade law enforcement since the agents saw him in the hallway and ultimately arrested him.
But let’s use the case as a jumping off point to ask a series of questions:
What would you do?
You are a doctor or nurse at a hospital. ICE agents show up with a warrant to arrest one of your patients or a family member of a patient. They ask you if you know where the migrant is. They warn you that if you obstruct them, they will arrest you and charge you with a felony. Do you:
Comply and turn them over, because it’s the law.
Refuse to give them any information.
Tell your patient to leave through the back entrance.
Other.
You are a principal/teacher at an elementary school. ICE agents ask to talk to one of the children in your classrooms. You know that they are threatening to arrest judges, governors, local officials, and other public employees who obstruct them. Do you:
Comply and let them interview your students.
Refuse, because you have heard/read about the family separations and lack of due process.
Usher the children out of the school.
Call the parents to warn them.
Other.
You are an academic administrator at a university that receives millions of dollars in federal money. ICE agents arrive with a warrant for a foreign student who has participated in protests. You know that the Trump Administration is prepared to cut off federal dollars if you fail to cooperate. Do you:
Obey and help them locate the student.
Warn the student to leave campus.
Other.
You are the employer of a housekeeper who has small children, one of whom has cancer. ICE agents ring your doorbell. You know your employee is here illegally, but the children are US citizens. Do you:
Ask the agents to come in for a cup of coffee and tell them where they can find your housekeeper, because it’s the law.
Because you had heard/read this story: “Three U.S. citizens, ages 2, 4 and 7, swiftly deported from Louisiana” you refuse.
Tell your housekeeper to hide in the basement or leave through the back door.
Other.
You are a pastor. ICE agents show up at your church and demand access to migrants who have sought sanctuary there. The agents threaten you with arrest if you do not comply. Do you.
Honor the warrant for their arrest because Romans 13 tells us that we should be obedient to those in authority.
Bar the door because there is a higher law.
Help the migrants escape.
Other.
You are a police officer who is interviewing a witness to a crime. ICE agents demand that you turn the witness over to them because a confidential informant has told them that he is a gang member. They do not have a warrant. Do you:
Comply because the job of law enforcement is to enforce the law.
Refuse the agents access to the witness until they get a warrant.
Other.
**
ICYMI:
Nota bene
Must-read cover story in the Atlantic [Gift link]: “I Run the Country and the World” — By Ashley Parker and Michael Scherer
The president seemed exhilarated by everything he had managed to do in the first two months of his second term: He had begun a purge of diversity efforts from the federal government; granted clemency to nearly 1,600 supporters who had participated in the invasion of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, including those caught beating police officers on camera; and signed 98 executive orders and counting (26 of them on his first day in office). He had fired independent regulators; gutted entire agencies; laid off great swaths of the federal workforce; and invoked 18th-century wartime powers to use against a criminal gang from Venezuela. He had adjusted tariffs like a DJ spinning knobs in the booth, upsetting the rhythms of global trade and inducing vertigo in the financial markets. He had raged at the leader of Ukraine, a democratic ally repelling an imperialist invasion, for not being “thankful”—and praised the leader of the invading country, Russia, as “very smart,” reversing in an instant 80 years of U.S. foreign-policy doctrine, and prompting the countries of NATO to prepare for their own defense, without the protective umbrella of American power, for the first time since 1945….
We asked the president if his second term felt different from his first. He said it did. “The first time, I had two things to do—run the country and survive; I had all these crooked guys,” he said. “And the second time, I run the country and the world.”
**
The Silver Bulletin: Canada thinks we're a bunch of hosers, eh?
Your mileage may vary on just how serious Trump is about the “51st state” business. The Canadian public is done playing around, though. They’re not just booing the Star Spangled Banner at hockey games. Even back in January, about 8 in 10 Canadians opposed Canada becoming part of the U.S, and a March Leger poll found that 41 percent of Canadians see “Tariffs / Trump / US aggression” as the top issue facing Canada. In a more recent YouGov poll, 64 percent of Canadians saw the U.S. as “unfriendly” or an “enemy,” and a majority (61 percent) said they’ve started boycotting American companies.
Canada’s Liberal Party is taking Trump seriously, too — and that’s part of why they’re favored today. When Carney called today’s snap election back in March, he said “We are facing the most significant crisis of our lifetimes because of President Trump’s unjustified trade actions and his threats to our sovereignty.” Meanwhile, the Conservative Party’s previously popular message that “Canada is broken” has fallen flat amid the recent upswell in Canadian patriotism.
BONUS: Trump decided to troll Canada on Election Day:
NYT: ‘60 Minutes’ Chastises Its Corporate Parent in Unusual On-Air Rebuke
In an extraordinary on-air rebuke, one of the top journalists at “60 Minutes” directly criticized the program’s parent company in the final moments of its Sunday night CBS telecast, its first episode since the program’s executive producer, Bill Owens, announced his intention to resign.
“Paramount began to supervise our content in new ways,” the correspondent, Scott Pelley, told viewers. “None of our stories has been blocked, but Bill felt he lost the independence that honest journalism requires.”…
In his remarks on Sunday night’s telecast, Mr. Pelley presented Mr. Owens’s decision to resign as an effort to protect “60 Minutes” from further interference.
“He did it for us and you,” Mr. Pelley told viewers of the show, which began airing in 1968. “Stories we pursued for 57 years are often controversial — lately, the Israel-Gaza War and the Trump administration. Bill made sure they were accurate and fair. He was tough that way.
“But our parent company, Paramount, is trying to complete a merger. The Trump administration must approve it.”
Monday dogs
Eli wants to know if he can come out to play with Auggie.
Sunday evening Eli.
Thanks for laying it out in terms than no one can misunderstand.
Also: in these circumstances ICE, law enforcement and other collaborating agencies have NO authority to be on your property or to enter your home without a judicial warrant under 4th and 5th Amendment guarantees.
People risked worse consequences than bogus felony charges when they sheltered Jews during the holocaust. The American underground railroad shows us the way now. To answer your question, we all should resist. Even if it means personal risks to us. Because if we don't, we lose our freedoms.