Judge Faces Misconduct Allegations Over Controversial Immigration Case Decision

Massachusetts Judge Shelley Joseph stands accused of judicial misconduct for allegedly obstructing an ICE detainer, a serious allegation that might see her removed from the bench.

Key Takeaways

Judge Shelley Joseph accused of allowing an immigrant to evade ICE, potentially leading to her removal.
The incident involved shutting off the courtroom recording for an off-the-record sidebar discussion.
A hearing set for June 9 will evaluate her conduct and potential judicial misconduct.
Joseph previously faced charges of conspiracy to obstruct justice, later dismissed due to her cooperation.
The hearing outcome may reflect ongoing debates about judicial independence versus federal enforcement compliance.

Allegations of Judicial Misconduct

Judge Shelley Joseph, a Boston Municipal Court judge, could face removal for allegedly allowing Jose Medina-Perez, a twice-deported immigrant, to avoid ICE capture by using a side exit in the courthouse. The alleged incident occurred in April 2018, spotlighting tensions between state and federal jurisdiction over immigration matters. Originally indicted by Trump-era US Attorney Andrew Lelling, Joseph managed to sidestep federal charges by agreeing to refer herself to the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Joseph faces serious allegations regarding her conduct in office. The Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct, which drafted a 112-page report, accused her of “willful judicial misconduct” for both her actions during the incident and her lack of cooperation with disciplinary proceedings. This claim raises questions about whether a judge’s duty to uphold legal processes might have taken a back seat to personal beliefs about immigration policy.

The Courtroom Incident and Subsequent Proceedings

The incident that has placed Judge Joseph in the spotlight stems partly from her decision to order the courtroom’s recording system to be turned off for an off-the-record sidebar discussion. During this time, she allegedly discussed the ICE detainer on Medina-Perez without any official record, exacerbating concerns about her intentions and procedural compliance. Joseph and her attorney, Thomas Hoopes, have yet to clarify their strategy regarding the upcoming hearing or the potential for a state-negotiated deal.

Meanwhile, the Commission’s report lambasted Joseph for a lack of transparency, criticizing her conduct during the hearing. Additionally, the case setup highlights the friction between judicial independence and federal immigration enforcement, an ongoing concern in the American judicial landscape. Notably, except for Medina-Perez being picked up by ICE on April 19, 2018, after his court escape, nearly five years have passed with no resolution to Joseph’s case.

A Massachusetts judge is facing a public hearing for helping a twice-deported illegal alien run from ICE by letting him out the back door in 2018.

Judge Shelley Joseph was charged with obstruction but charges were dropped, and her case moved to the Commission on Judicial Conduct pic.twitter.com/Wakx2q9YLd

— Mike Hawkins (@theHawk1947) May 1, 2025

Broader Implications and Legal Context

The allegations surrounding Judge Joseph are not entirely isolated. The case update coincides with similar accusations against Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan, highlighting a rising trend of judicial challenges against federal enforcement authority in immigration cases. While Judge Dugan has been suspended by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, her legal team remains confident in her vindication. Such cases amplify debates on the judiciary’s role amid shifting federal immigration policies.

The unfolding story of Judge Shelley Joseph symbolizes a broader tension in the judicial system, reflecting struggles to balance state jurisdictional rights and federal mandates. As the hearing date approaches, how Joseph’s case unfolds will likely have significant implications for how similar judicial decisions are scrutinized and managed in courts across the nation.