Trump’s Immigration Strategy and Legal Challenges
President Trump has pledged to take action, which he describes as “revenge,” by deploying thousands of ICE agents into what he terms “Blue Cities,” referring to areas he sees as strongholds of Democratic power. This aggressive approach has already led to the prosecution of civil servants who resisted his controversial immigrant detainment policies.
However, it seems likely that the Trump administration may struggle to win these legal battles, largely due to the enduring American tradition of jury nullification, a concept that some critics have labeled as outdated since before the Civil War.
In New Jersey, Representative Lamonica McIver faced indictment for allegedly obstructing the arrest of Newark Mayor Ras Baraka at an immigration protest outside an ICE detention center. If convicted on two felony counts, she could face up to eight years in prison.
McIver has maintained her innocence and argued that her actions were within her legal rights as a council member, claiming protections under constitutional speech and debate clauses.
In Wisconsin, the Trump administration has charged Milwaukee County Court Judge Hannah Dugan with preventing ICE arrests in her courtroom. Dugan has pleaded not guilty and is attempting to dismiss the charges based on judicial immunity.
Both McIver and Dugan have strong defenses and may benefit from public sympathy, particularly in cities like Newark and Milwaukee that lean Democratic and oppose Trump’s immigration policies.
As I’ve discussed in my book, American judges have historically been reluctant to uphold laws that are unpopular or viewed as unjust, especially when the defendants are relatable.
Take, for instance, events from September 1851. Following the controversial Fugitive Slave Law, federal agents attempted to arrest a group of alleged runaway slaves in Pennsylvania. Local black residents and white allies rallied to protect the fugitives, leading to a violent confrontation. One federal officer was injured, and the runaways eventually found refuge in Canada with the help of well-known abolitionists like Frederick Douglass.
During this time, the administration issued indictments against many involved, based on claims of conspiracy to thwart the law. The first trial took place in Philadelphia, where a white man named Castner Hanway was wrongly assumed to be the ringleader of the resistance. Ironically, Hanway was a prominent abolitionist who later received legal representation from Thaddeus Stevens, the future author of the 13th Amendment.
In another notable incident in 1851, Shadrach Minkins was captured in Boston under the Fugitive Slave Act but was famously rescued in a daring courtroom escape, illustrating the fierce resistance against such laws.
This resistance escalated, leading to various legal confrontations across the northern states. While some prosecutions succeeded temporarily, many judges showed leniency, often dismissing charges against those who aided fugitive slaves. More crucially, these trials ignited a broader political movement against slavery, moving many Northerners beyond mere disapproval to active opposition.
As McIver and Dugan’s cases unfold, their prosecutors will contend with the sentiments of judges who might relate to the defendants, much like those in historical cases involving fugitive slaves. The discourse around these prosecutions may also emphasize the perceived hypocrisy of targeting minor offenses while overlooking significant acts of insurrection, such as those seen on January 6th.
The question looming ahead is whether the legal actions against Democratic officials and the aggressive tactics of immigration authorities will influence the political landscape in the upcoming 2026 midterms, similar to events during Lincoln’s rise.
Professor Emeritus Stephen Lubett offers insights through his writings, including discussions on political trials and the role of abolitionist lawyers.
