Many State Court Report readers likely followed the FBI’s arrest of Milwaukee trial court judge Hannah Dugan last month for allegedly obstructing an immigration arrest. The arrest — complete with handcuffs and a perp walk — was described by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi as “sending a very strong message” to judges she characterized as “deranged.”

Dugan’s arrest has rightly been broadly criticized as a threat to the fair operation of our legal system. What’s received less attention is its connection to recent policy changes that have dramatically increased the incidence of ICE arrests in state courthouses. In a recent article, State Court Report editor Douglas Keith details how a January directive from the Department of Homeland Security removed most restrictions on immigration enforcement in courthouses. These changes, Keith argues, have “set federal law enforcement on a collision course with state courts.”

ICE courthouse arrests rarely occurred until 2017, when the first Trump administration began relying on them heavily as an immigration enforcement tool. As Keith details, the results were chaotic. Courthouse hallways turned into chase scenes. Domestic violence protective orders plummeted as victims feared coming forward. A Massachusetts judge was even charged in 2019 with obstruction of justice under similar circumstances to Judge Dugan’s, although the charges were eventually dropped after the administration changed. The Biden administration also put in place new restrictions on ICE courthouse arrests, heeding calls from judges, prosecutors, victims’ advocates, and court administrators, among others. Now DHS has rolled back these reforms.

ICE courthouse arrests create unavoidable friction between immigration authorities and judges, who need to maintain orderly proceedings and create a safe environment for those attending court. As a group of 75 retired state and federal judges explained in a letter to DHS in 2018, “judges simply cannot do their jobs — and our justice system cannot function effectively — if victims, defendants, witnesses, and family members do not feel secure in accessing the courthouse.”

As Keith argues, the Trump administration should reinstate the Biden-era policies and put limits on immigration enforcement in courthouses. But it’s also worth noting that there are steps states can take to mitigate the threat of ICE arrests — and also protect judges and court staff.

First, in effectuating arrests, ICE frequently relies on administrative warrants, which don’t require a judge’s sign-off but which also have a more limited legal effect. States can adopt court rules or legislation barring ICE from making arrests in state courthouses absent a judicially authorized warrant, as some states did during the first Trump administration. These policies provide a model for states looking to avoid the “collision course” between ICE and courts that Keith describes.

States can also prohibit court personnel from facilitating or cooperating with immigration enforcement activities, including through providing information to ICE agents — something well within their rights as a matter of federalism. At the least, they can establish clear policies and a chain of command for when ICE agents enter courthouses, so court staff aren’t forced to make decisions on the fly. Finally, courts can also expand offerings for remote proceedings to help ensure that courts are safe spaces for those who need to access them.

Judge Jefferson Griffin conceded the 2024 race for a North Carolina Supreme Court seat to Justice Allison Riggs on Wednesday, ending the six-month election dispute, writes the Brennan Center’s Erin Geiger Smith. The concession followed a federal court order that the election be certified and that the state board not adhere to a North Carolina Supreme Court ruling requiring voters to “cure” certain disputed ballots.

North Carolina State Board of Elections was the focus of another important decision last week when a state appeals court permitted the state legislature to transfer power to appoint board members from the governor to the state auditor. The Brennan Center’s Justin Lam explains how state boards are meant to protect voters and why the power grab could be bad for democratic ideals. Read more

The Wyoming Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case addressing whether abortion is health care, centering on a 2012 state constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to make one’s own health care decisions. The outcome could have implications for litigation across the country, writes the University of California, Davis School of Law’s Mary Ziegler. Read more

“Laws around marriage equality have rapidly changed over the last decade, leaving some families in a legal gray zone,” write Brennan Center senior counsel Kathrina Szymborksi Wolfkot and Rice University student Maya Adhikari. “A case before the Ohio Supreme Court highlights the ways laws defining parenthood can fall short for people who have children in same-sex relationships.” Read more

Many lawyers don’t think like originalists when it comes to state constitutions, and they subsequently waive certain arguments, writes the Institute for Justice’s Anthony Sanders, who provides practical advice on looking to state history, especially at the time of the adoption of a state’s constitution. Read more

Florida’s constitution was “designed to transfer power from the government to the people,” but the government continues to retake some of that power, writes University of Florida law professor Mary E. Adkins, author of Making Modern Florida: How the Spirit of Reform Shaped a New Constitution. The essay is part of our 50-state series on the nation’s constitutions. Read more

“Unlike the federal government, many states have updated their constitutions to reflect a desire for a qualified public workforce with sufficient job protections,” writes Willamette University College of Law’s Paul Diller. Read more

State supreme courts will take up issues including a regional greenhouse gas cap in Pennsylvania, a ban on misgendering LGBTQ+ long-term care residents in California, and appellate courts’ review of within-guidelines sentences in Oregon, write State Court Report’s Sarah Kessler and Erin Geiger Smith. Read more

McCarty v. Missouri Secretary of State, Missouri Supreme Court
Held that business groups had failed to show that ballot summaries for a 2024 measure passed by voters to increase the state’s minimum wage and grant paid sick leave were inadequate or unfair and could not contest the measure’s validity directly with the state high court. // Associated Press

Stary v. Ethridge, Texas Supreme Court
Held that due process requires a heightened evidentiary standard to support a protective order prohibiting contact between a parent and child for longer than two years, likening such an order to a government’s termination of parental rights. // KERA News

You can find briefs and opinions from notable state constitutional lawsuits in our State Case Database.