Judge Shelley M. Richmond Joseph, who previously faced felony charges for allegedly aiding an illegal migrant’s escape from federal immigration authorities, is once again under scrutiny. The Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct filed formal charges Monday, accusing Joseph of “willful judicial misconduct” and actions “unbecoming” of a judicial officer. The charges are now before the state Supreme Judicial Court.
The allegations stem from a 2018 incident in Newton District Court, where Joseph, presiding over a case involving Jose Medina-Perez, allegedly allowed him to evade Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Medina-Perez, an illegal migrant from the Dominican Republic, had been deported twice and was barred from re-entry for 20 years. He was at the court on narcotics charges and linked to a DUI warrant in Pennsylvania.
An ICE officer was stationed in the courthouse lobby, awaiting Medina-Perez’s release. However, Joseph allegedly ordered the defendant to exit through a rear door leading to a parking lot, circumventing ICE apprehension. The decision was reportedly made during an unrecorded sidebar conversation, where the court recorder was instructed to be turned off. The ICE officer, unaware of the change, waited for hours before leaving without the suspect.
Thomas Homan, then acting director of ICE, expressed outrage over the incident. “For an officer of the court to help someone escape ICE arrest—I’ve done this 35 years and never seen anything like that,” Homan said. He is set to serve as border czar under the incoming Trump administration.
Federal prosecutors charged Joseph in 2019 with conspiracy to obstruct justice and obstruction of justice. Joseph denied wrongdoing and fought the charges until a 2022 agreement allowed the case to be dropped. In exchange, she referred herself to the Commission on Judicial Conduct, which investigated her actions. The commission ultimately determined she engaged in misconduct, including a failure to cooperate fully with judicial disciplinary authorities.
This case highlights tensions between federal immigration enforcement and local officials resistant to cooperating with such efforts. Joseph’s conduct has drawn criticism for undermining the administration of justice and damaging public trust in the judiciary. As the case proceeds, it raises broader questions about judicial accountability in politically charged contexts.
