In a striking development, over 100 federal judges have called for the dismissal of charges against Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan, accused of obstructing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in their attempt to arrest an undocumented immigrant. The case, which has sparked accusations of judicial corruption, highlights escalating tensions between the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown and the judiciary’s role in upholding due process.
On April 18, 2025, Dugan, a seasoned judge elected in 2016, allegedly interfered with ICE agents seeking to detain Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican national facing misdemeanor battery charges in her courtroom. According to a federal complaint, Dugan became “visibly angry” upon learning of the agents’ presence, deemed their administrative warrant insufficient, and directed them to consult the chief judge. She then reportedly escorted Flores-Ruiz and his attorney through a restricted jury door, allowing him to briefly evade arrest. ICE agents apprehended Flores-Ruiz after a foot chase outside the courthouse. Dugan faces federal charges of obstruction and concealing a person, carrying a potential six-year prison sentence.
The coalition of federal judges, in a rare public stance, argues that Dugan’s actions fall under judicial immunity, which protects judges from prosecution for official acts. Their brief contends that her decisions in the courtroom, even if controversial, were within her authority to manage proceedings and ensure a safe environment. They warn that prosecuting judges for such actions threatens judicial independence, potentially intimidating the bench into aligning with federal enforcement priorities. This defense has drawn sharp criticism from those who view it as evidence of systemic bias within the judiciary, shielding one of their own from accountability.
The Trump administration has framed Dugan’s actions as a deliberate obstruction of justice. Attorney General Pam Bondi, in a Fox News interview, called Dugan’s conduct “absurd,” alleging she prioritized protecting an undocumented immigrant over public safety. FBI Director Kash Patel echoed this, stating that Dugan’s actions endangered agents and the community. The administration points to Flores-Ruiz’s prior deportation in 2013 and recent domestic abuse charges as justification for their aggressive pursuit. Supporters of the charges argue that judges must uphold the law, not facilitate its evasion, particularly in cases involving alleged violent offenders.
Critics of the prosecution, including Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers, argue that the arrest of a sitting judge represents an overreach by the Trump administration, undermining the separation of powers. Evers called it an attack on the judiciary, while Senator Tammy Baldwin labeled it a “gravely serious” move that threatens democratic principles. Immigration advocates, like the Brennan Center, warn that ICE’s presence in courthouses deters undocumented immigrants from participating in legal proceedings, undermining access to justice.
The case echoes a 2018 incident in Massachusetts, where Judge Shelley Joseph faced similar charges for allegedly helping an undocumented immigrant avoid ICE. Those charges were dropped in 2022 after Joseph referred herself to a state judicial conduct commission, a resolution some see as a precedent for Dugan’s case. However, the current political climate, marked by intensified immigration enforcement, suggests a tougher road ahead. Dugan, represented by high-profile attorneys including former Solicitor General Paul Clemente, has pleaded not guilty and filed a motion to dismiss, citing judicial immunity.
As Dugan’s next court appearance looms on May 15, the case has become a lightning rod for broader debates over immigration policy and judicial authority. Critics argue that the support from over 100 federal judges signals a troubling willingness to protect colleagues over enforcing immigration laws. Supporters, however, see it as a stand against federal overreach. The outcome will likely reverberate through the judiciary and shape public trust in the rule of law.
