According to federal prosecutors, Joseph and MacGregor helped the defendant evade detention by allowing him to leave the courthouse through a rear exit while the ICE agent waited in the front lobby.

Reactions to the prosecution were divided, and the case resulted in legislation and additional lawsuits brought by both supporters and opponents, seeking to loosen or strengthen enforcement of federal immigration laws in local courtrooms.

[3] Though not the first state where local officials refused to enforce Trump's immigration policies,[6] Massachusetts had been a leader in the sanctuary city movement.

[9] Massachusetts courts have also issued rules requiring judges and their staff to neither assist nor obstruct federal immigration authorities.

[8] In response to the 2017 SJC ruling, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker, a Republican, filed legislation that would have given state officers authority to honor ICE detainer requests for criminal suspects and convicts.

[9] In 2018, ICE's acting director Thomas Homan issued a policy directive allowing agents to enter state courthouses to arrest unauthorized immigrants.

[11] On March 30, 2018, Jose Medina-Perez, a 38-year-old undocumented immigrant from the Dominican Republic,[10][5] was arrested for narcotics possession in Newton, which had been a sanctuary city since 2017.

On April 2, 2018, Medina-Perez was brought to the Newton District Court, described by The New York Times as "a sleepy, two-room courthouse in a wealthy, liberal suburb.

Homan believed it was clearly obstruction of justice, but ICE did not have the legal authority to prosecute; only a US Attorney could seek an indictment.

[18] Prosecutors also allege that MacGregor falsely told state judges that he had accidentally disabled the courtroom audio recorder[5] through his unfamiliarity with it.

[25] Chief Justice Ralph Gants wrote for the court, "In turbulent times, the risk of being stripped of a paycheck may have a chilling effect on a judge’s willingness to challenge the conduct of a prosecutor and thereby diminish the overall independence of the judiciary.

"[2][25][21][26][22] The sole dissenting justice, Frank Gaziano, wrote that the court's decision "smacks of preferential treatment, and thereby erodes public confidence in the judiciary".

[28] In September 2019, Joseph filed a motion to dismiss the charges against her, which she called "unprecedented", asserting that "no state judge has ever been prosecuted for not facilitating the immigration policies of the federal government".

[29] A group of 61 retired Massachusetts judges, together with US law professors and others,[30] filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the motion to dismiss, arguing that "Occasionally frustrating the expectations of the executive branch is a core function of an independent judiciary."

The prosecutor also announced that a deferred prosecution agreement would resolve the perjury charge against MacGregor, while the obstruction of justice counts against him would be dismissed.

[2][13][39] The "closely-watched case"[21] drew national attention[23][40] and sparked a debate about states refraining from carrying out the "increasingly tough"[41] immigration policies of the Trump administration.

Writing in The Boston Herald, right-wing radio host Howie Carr called Joseph "a lawless, privileged moonbat judge ... hoping for an O. J. Simpson-like jury nullification from 12 Democrats afflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome.

"[2] Supporters of Joseph warned that the federal case will lead to the prosecution of more judges, undermining judicial independence.

[2] Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey criticized the indictment as "a radical and politically motivated attack on our state and the independence of our courts"[3][5][6][42] and "misuse of prosecutorial resources".

[12][18] Lelling denied that the indictment was meant to send a political message, saying, "We did not bring this case in response to the public debate over immigration enforcement".

[3] The Massachusetts chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) described the case as "preposterous, ironic, and deeply damaging to the rule of law," saying the decision "seems to have little to do with the actual facts, and everything to do with enforcing the president's anti-immigrant agenda".

[43] During grand jury investigations in December 2018, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker called for Joseph to be temporarily removed from office.

[47] On May 22, 2021, the lawsuit was dropped after the Biden administration changed ICE policy to no longer make routine arrests at courthouses.