Wisconsin Judge Pleads Not Guilty in ICE Case/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan pleaded not guilty to federal charges alleging she helped an undocumented man evade ICE agents. The case has sparked political outrage and public protests over immigration enforcement and judicial independence. Her trial is set for July 21.
Wisconsin Judge Pleads Not Guilty in ICE Case: Quick Looks
- Judge Hannah Dugan faces obstruction and concealment charges after allegedly aiding a man to avoid ICE.
- She pleaded not guilty in federal court, with a one-week trial scheduled for July 21.
- Defense argues judicial immunity and federal overreach, citing Dugan’s official capacity as a judge.
- Protesters rallied outside court, accusing the DOJ of political intimidation and abuse of power.
- The man she allegedly helped, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, was arrested outside the courthouse following a foot chase.
- Court documents cite 2013 deportation and recent domestic abuse charges for Flores-Ruiz.
- State Supreme Court suspended Dugan, citing the need to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.
- Former prosecutors suggest Trump officials are making an example of Dugan amid broader immigration enforcement efforts.
- Dugan is defended by high-profile attorneys, including former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement.
Wisconsin Judge Pleads Not Guilty in ICE Case
Deep Look
Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan has entered a not guilty plea in federal court following accusations that she obstructed immigration enforcement efforts by helping an undocumented man evade arrest by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The case has ignited widespread controversy, highlighting tensions between federal immigration policies and judicial independence under the Trump administration.
Dugan is facing two felony charges: concealing an individual to prevent arrest and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors allege that she used her authority to usher Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a man previously deported in 2013, out of her courtroom through a restricted exit to help him avoid apprehension by ICE agents present at the courthouse on April 18.
The arraignment, held in Milwaukee federal court, lasted only minutes, with Magistrate Judge Stephen Dries setting a trial date for July 21. Dugan, her attorneys, and prosecutors left the courthouse without commenting publicly.
According to the criminal affidavit filed by the FBI, Dugan was notified of ICE’s presence in the courthouse hallway while Flores-Ruiz was present in her courtroom for a hearing related to misdemeanor domestic abuse charges. Witnesses said Dugan reacted with visible frustration, called the situation “absurd,” and left the bench to speak with the agents. She reportedly confronted them with another judge, demanding they consult the chief judge about the warrant.
Upon returning to the courtroom, Dugan allegedly told Flores-Ruiz and his attorney to follow her and escorted them through a back exit typically reserved for court officials and in-custody defendants. ICE agents later apprehended Flores-Ruiz outside the courthouse after a short chase.
Dugan’s defense team filed a motion to dismiss the case, asserting that she was acting in her judicial role and is therefore immune from prosecution. They also argue that federal authorities overstepped their bounds by interfering in state court operations, violating the principle of state sovereignty.
The controversy surrounding the case reached beyond the courtroom. A large crowd gathered outside the courthouse during the arraignment, holding signs denouncing the charges and chanting pro-immigrant slogans like “Si se puede” and “Due process rights.” Some labeled the arrest a political stunt meant to intimidate public officials who resist the Trump administration’s hardline immigration stance.
Nancy Camden, a protester from Mequon, called the arrest an act of “intimidation,” stating, “I’m not going to be intimidated. I’m fighting back.” Organizers from the Milwaukee Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression called the case “state-funded repression” and warned that targeting public officials could set a dangerous precedent.
Meanwhile, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has temporarily suspended Dugan from her judicial duties, citing the need to preserve public trust in the judiciary. She remains free pending trial.
The legal and political implications of the case are considerable. Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, the man at the center of the controversy, had previously been deported and reentered the country illegally, according to court filings. His recent domestic abuse charges further complicate public perception of the case.
Legal experts say the Trump administration may be seeking to use Dugan’s case as a warning to other officials who might resist ICE operations. Former U.S. Attorney John Vaudreuil speculated that high-ranking officials like U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi or Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche are likely directing the case, reducing the odds of a plea deal.
“Her defense team knows how divisive Trump’s immigration policies are, and they’ll likely push for a jury trial,” Vaudreuil said. “The courtroom could become a flashpoint in the debate over immigration and judicial authority.”
Dugan is being represented by a formidable legal team that includes Steven Biskupic, a former U.S. attorney with two decades of prosecutorial experience, and Paul Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general who has argued over 100 cases before the Supreme Court. Both men were appointed by Republican President George W. Bush, a fact likely to be used by the defense to underscore bipartisan support for Dugan.
As the case heads toward trial this summer, it stands to become a high-profile legal battle at the crossroads of immigration, judicial independence, and federal authority. The outcome could have lasting implications for how far local judges can—or should—go in the face of federal enforcement within their courtrooms.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.