Defending Access to Our Courts

Democracy does not collapse all at once. It erodes in seemingly imperceptible increments. The result is the same: core institutions are treated as annoyances rather than guarantees; government power is exercised as if rules apply only to everyone else.

One of the clearest warning signs is what happens at the courthouse door.

Courts are where we prove allegations, test evidence, and resolve disputes under rules that apply to everyone. When outside forces can disrupt proceedings, remove parties, intimidate witnesses, or punish advocacy, the promise of equal justice becomes little more than an illusion.

At Erkan & Sullivan, PC, we did not learn about these risks in theory. We were at the frontline when federal immigration enforcement excesses materialized in Massachusetts in a way the public could not ignore. We acted to stop it in the courtroom. We then shifted from response to prevention, drafting legislation designed to end these courthouse encroachments once and for all.

Public, Midtrial Abductions: We Should All Be Afraid

On March 27, 2025, as we walked out of the Edward W. Brooke courthouse, we watched in confusion and disbelief as armed individuals in plainclothes seized our client, thrust him in the back of a fully blacked-out SUV, and sped away. Members of the public could only stand in wide-eyed disbelief. A bystander yelled at the abductors, calling them cowards.

Though it was not clear at the time, what bore all the hallmarks of a brazen kidnapping was in reality a planned ICE operation. It was orchestrated to occur in the middle of our client’s ongoing jury trial. The agents did not say where he was being taken. He was never returned. The jury was denied the chance to reach a verdict, and the trial was brought to a halt by force outside the courtroom.

We had all heard the rhetoric – a promised federal immigration enforcement policy the likes of which this country had never seen. But on March 27, 2025, rhetoric became reality. It took shape in the form of this direct assault on the integrity of judicial proceedings.

The Courthouse Is Where Democracy Becomes Real

The judicial process depends on participants being able to appear, be heard, and complete proceedings without fear. A courthouse cannot function as a place of truth-seeking if people are too afraid to go because federal officers are stalking its halls, hunting for them. When that fear spreads, justice slows. Then it bends. Then it breaks.

At our request, Judge Mark Summerville convened a hearing to determine what was known and by whom. The record established that this was not a misunderstanding or a coincidence. It was a brazen action designed to bring an otherwise constitutionally guaranteed jury trial to an end by disappearing the accused from the proceeding itself.

The Court ultimately held ICE agent Brian Sullivan in contempt, describing the conduct as obstructing justice and grounded in intentional and egregious violations of the defendant’s rights.

That sequence matters for one reason above all: it showed, in real time, how authoritarian tactics weaken democratic institutions. They do not win by persuading people to abandon the rules. They win by acting as if the rules no longer constrain power.

Courthouse targeting does not only affect the person taken. It changes behavior across entire communities.

When people believe they can be seized at court, defendants hesitate to fight their cases, victims hesitate to seek protection, and witnesses hesitate to tell the truth. Judges are forced to manage fear alongside evidence. Lawyers are pressured for doing their jobs. The system loses legitimacy, and legitimacy is the lifeblood of a democratic society.

A functioning democracy requires more than elections. It requires a justice system that people can access without fear, and a courthouse that remains a place where rights are exercised in public view under public rules.

The Intimidation Playbook: “Obstruction” Threats Designed To Freeze Public Officials

After the courthouse seizure, the message to institutions was not subtle. In public statements, the U.S. Department of Justice emphasized that efforts to interfere with federal enforcement could be treated as ‘hindering’ or ‘obstructing’ federal operations and met with prosecution.

That language has one predictable effect: it makes public officials weigh personal risk before taking lawful steps to protect the integrity of their own institutions. Courts cannot remain independent when safeguarding court proceedings is recast as interference.

Leadership Means Speaking Plainly and Acting Without Fear

We were not content to sit back passively, as our concern was that what happened to WML previewed what was to come. We saw darkness sweep across our country. A tide of federal agents invaded our communities, hunting our neighbors. Armed national guard forces were deployed, turning our streets into a de facto military occupation. In the days and weeks that followed, people have been hurt. People have been killed. All of this was designed to convey a clear message: resistance will not be tolerated.

We decided a different message was necessary:

We will not be bystanders to a war against democracy. We will resist incursions on the fundamental rights enshrined in our Constitution: the right to be free from oppression; the right to equal protection under the law; the right to due process.

From Frontline Response To Lasting Protection

Stopping a single abuse is not enough. A durable solution requires policy that removes the incentive and opportunity to use state courthouses as staging grounds for civil immigration enforcement, and the terror that accompanies it.

That is why we moved from courtroom response to legislative prevention.

In association with the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Murat and Ryan drafted a measure with a simple purpose: protect access to justice by barring civil arrests in connection with court proceedings. We brought that proposal directly to lawmakers, including Senator Lydia Edwards and Governor Maura Healey. We explained the practical reality every courthouse actor understands: people cannot be expected to pursue claims, show up as witnesses, report crimes, or comply with court orders when the courthouse is treated as an enforcement outpost for unrelated civil violations.

Our legislation is a bulwark against tyranny. It seeks to preserve the integrity of judicial proceedings and protect the right to appear in court without fear. It is a clear, enforceable rule built for the world we are living in now, shaped by what happened here in Massachusetts, in our courtroom, to our client.

This is what leadership looks like when democratic institutions are under strain. You meet the abuse at the point of impact. You stop it. Then you build the guardrail so it cannot happen again.

Where We Stand

We stand for a courthouse that remains open, accessible, and safe for every person who needs it. We stand for due process, equal protection, and the right to defend yourself in court without fear of civil retaliation. We stand for the rule of law as a living promise, not a slogan.

If you want to support this work, partner with us on it, or need help when your rights intersect with courthouse enforcement tactics, contact Erkan & Sullivan, PC.