United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 20-1787 UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. SHELLEY M. RICHMOND JOSEPH, Defendant, Appellant. No. 20-1794 UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. WESLEY MACGREGOR, Defendant, Appellant. APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Leo T. Sorokin, U.S. District Judge] Before Lynch, Thompson, and Kayatta, Circuit Judges. Thomas M. Hoopes, with whom Douglas S. Brooks, Libby Hoopes Brooks PC, Elizabeth N. Mulvey, Crowe & Mulvey LLP, Felicia H. Ellsworth, and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP were on brief, for appellant Shelley M. Richmond Joseph. Rosemary C. Scapicchio for appellant Wesley MacGregor. Maura Healey, Attorney General of Massachusetts, Robert E. Toone, Anne Sterman, and Amanda Hainsworth, Assistant Attorneys General, on brief for The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, amicus curiae. Matthew R. Segal, Daniel L. McFadden, Krista Oehlke, and American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Massachusetts, Inc. on brief for The Ad Hoc Committee for Judicial Independence, amicus curiae. Sabin Willett, Vanessa M. Brown, and Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP on brief for Legal Scholars, amici curiae. Howard M. Cooper, Benjamin J. Wish, Maria T. Davis, and Todd & Weld LLP on brief for The Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, amicus curiae. Donald C. Lockhart, Assistant U.S. Attorney, with whom Andrew E. Lelling, U.S. Attorney, was on brief, for appellee. February 28, 2022 KAYATTA, Circuit Judge. These appeals concern the pending federal prosecution of Massachusetts state district court judge Shelley Joseph and her courtroom deputy Wesley MacGregor for actions that allegedly interfered with the enforcement of federal immigration law. The defendants request that we step in now and review the trial court's refusal to dismiss their indictments prior to trial based on (1) Judge Joseph's claim of absolute judicial immunity and (2) both defendants' contention that their prosecution offends various provisions of the United States Constitution. We must reject the defendants' request for pre-trial review of the denial of their motions to dismiss because their appeals are premature. Our explanation follows. I. For the purposes of this appeal, the defendants say that they accept as true the government's allegations as contained in the indictment. Those allegations outline the following version of events. On April 2, 2018, Judge Joseph presided over the arraignment of an undocumented immigrant referred to by the parties as A.S.1 A.S. had been fingerprinted upon his arrest by police in 1 As used in the indictment, "A.S." evidently stands for "alien subject." Because the parties have done so, we use the moniker for the sake of convenience. - 3 - Newton, Massachusetts. An ensuing check of a national law enforcement database indicated that he had previously been deported from the United States and was prohibited from reentering the country. Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued an immigration detainer and warrant of removal for A.S. ICE sent these documents to the Newton Police, requesting that state officials notify ICE before releasing A.S. and, if necessary, detain him for up to 48 hours to allow ICE to take …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals