Listen to the article
In a rare federal trial that has drawn national attention, Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan faced a jury Monday on obstruction and concealment charges after allegedly helping an immigrant evade federal agents in her courthouse last spring.
Federal prosecutors played courtroom audio recordings in which Dugan could be heard telling her court reporter, “I’ll get the heat,” as they discussed who would assist Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, the 31-year-old immigrant at the center of the case.
The trial marks an extraordinary legal development amid heightened tensions over immigration enforcement policies. Prosecutors allege that Dugan deliberately interfered with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents who had arrived at the Milwaukee County Courthouse to arrest Flores-Ruiz, who was appearing for a misdemeanor battery charge.
“They did not expect a judge, sworn to uphold the law, would divide their arrest team and impede their efforts to do their jobs,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Keith Alexander told jurors in his opening statement.
According to evidence presented, Dugan directed federal agents to speak with the chief judge about attempting to make an arrest in her courtroom. While the agents were away, she quickly rescheduled Flores-Ruiz’s hearing and informed him he could attend future proceedings via Zoom. She then directed him to exit through a private door leading to a public corridor.
FBI agent Erin Lucker, the government’s first witness, walked jurors through video footage showing the courthouse’s back corridors and Dugan signaling immigration officers to consult with Chief Judge Carl Ashley.
Flores-Ruiz was eventually arrested outside the courthouse following a foot chase and was deported months later.
Defense attorney Steven Biskupic countered the prosecution’s narrative, arguing that Dugan never intended to obstruct the federal agents. He noted that other agents stationed in the courthouse hallway chose not to arrest Flores-Ruiz when he emerged through the door, instead pursuing him outside the building.
“Now, after the fact, everyone wants to blame Judge Dugan,” Biskupic told jurors.
The case has taken on political dimensions, with Democrats claiming the prosecution represents an attempt by the Trump administration to intimidate judges who might impede immigration enforcement efforts. Republicans have been equally vocal, with U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, a Trump supporter currently running for Wisconsin governor, publicly calling to “lock her up” in a recent social media post.
The politicization of the case has reportedly had personal consequences for Dugan. Earlier this spring, the judge told police that she and her family found threatening flyers at their homes—an indication of the case’s volatile nature.
The obstruction charge carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, though federal sentencing guidelines provide judges significant discretion in determining actual penalties. U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, who is presiding over the trial, previously declined defense motions to dismiss the charges, ruling that Dugan did not have established judicial immunity in this situation.
The government’s case is expected to continue through at least Thursday, with prosecutors planning to call approximately two dozen witnesses. The proceedings represent an unusual instance of a sitting judge facing criminal charges for actions taken while on the bench.
The trial comes amid ongoing national debate over immigration enforcement tactics in sensitive locations like courthouses. Immigrant advocates have long argued that courthouse arrests discourage vulnerable populations from participating in the justice system, while federal authorities maintain they need access to these venues to apprehend individuals who might otherwise be difficult to locate.
As the trial unfolds in Milwaukee, it will likely serve as a significant test case regarding the boundaries between federal immigration enforcement and the independence of state court judges.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
17 Comments
This case raises important questions about the balance of powers between the judicial and executive branches. While immigration enforcement is critical, judges must also be able to exercise their independence and discretion. I’ll be following this trial closely to see how it’s resolved.
Given the high-profile nature of this case, I wonder if there are any political factors at play beyond the legal issues. It’s important to keep an open mind and let the evidence and due process guide the outcome.
This is certainly a high-profile and politically charged case. While the specifics of the judge’s actions are still unfolding, it’s crucial that the trial remains focused on the rule of law and due process, rather than partisan agendas.
I agree, this case has the potential to set important precedents around the boundaries of judicial independence and the enforcement of immigration laws. It will be important to watch how the trial progresses and what the implications may be for the mining and energy sectors.
As a follower of mining and commodities news, I’m interested to see if this case has any broader implications for labor and immigration issues in those industries. The resource extraction sectors often rely on immigrant workers, so the outcome could be relevant.
As someone who follows the mining and energy sectors, I’m curious to see if this case has any ripple effects on labor and immigration issues in those industries. Resource extraction often relies on immigrant workers, so the outcome could be relevant.
This is certainly a sensitive and politically charged case. While the specifics of the judge’s actions are still unclear, it’s crucial that the trial remains focused on the rule of law and due process, rather than partisan agendas or political considerations.
Agreed. It will be important to see how the trial progresses and whether any broader policy implications emerge, particularly in terms of the balance of power between the judiciary and executive branch on immigration enforcement issues.
The tensions between immigration enforcement and the judiciary are longstanding and complex. This trial will likely shine a light on some of those tensions and the difficult balancing act that judges must navigate. I’m curious to see how the evidence and arguments unfold.
As someone who follows the mining and commodities industry, I’m intrigued by the potential economic impacts of this case. Immigration and labor issues are closely tied to the resource extraction sectors, so the outcome could have ripple effects.
Interesting that this case involves a judge accused of interfering with ICE agents. I’m curious to learn more about the specific allegations and evidence against the judge. It’s a complex issue that touches on immigration, the judiciary, and the rule of law.
This case highlights the ongoing tensions around immigration enforcement and the role of the courts. It will be important to see how the trial proceeds and whether any broader policy implications emerge.
The tensions between immigration enforcement and judicial independence are long-standing and complex. This trial will likely shed light on some of those challenges and the difficult decisions that judges must navigate. I’ll be following the case closely to see how it unfolds.
As someone who follows mining and energy news, I’m interested to see how this case may impact the broader political landscape around immigration and enforcement. The mining and resource extraction industries often rely on immigrant labor, so there could be economic implications to consider as well.
It’s concerning to see a judge potentially abusing their position to obstruct federal law enforcement. At the same time, we need to ensure due process and respect for the rule of law on all sides.
This is a fascinating case that touches on the complex relationship between immigration enforcement and the judiciary. It will be interesting to see how the trial unfolds and what the implications are for judicial independence and the rule of law.
I’m curious to hear more details about the specific actions the judge is accused of taking to interfere with the ICE agents. Were her motivations purely legal or were there political factors at play as well?