A Wisconsin judge faces federal charges and suspension from the bench after allegedly helping an illegal immigrant evade arrest by immigration agents in her courtroom.

At a Glance

• Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan has been charged with obstructing a government proceeding and concealing an individual to prevent arrest
• The Wisconsin Supreme Court has temporarily suspended Dugan to maintain public confidence in the judiciary
• Federal prosecutors allege Dugan helped a man evade immigration officers by escorting him through a nonpublic jury door
• Former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement has joined Dugan’s defense team
• Dugan was released from custody and is scheduled to enter a plea on May 15

Supreme Court Takes Immediate Action

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has taken the extraordinary step of temporarily suspending Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan following federal charges that she deliberately obstructed immigration enforcement. The court’s decision came swiftly after Dugan was arrested for allegedly helping an illegal immigrant evade Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents who were attempting to make an arrest at the Milwaukee County Courthouse. The justices acted on their own initiative, not waiting for an external complaint, highlighting the severity with which they viewed the allegations.

A reserve judge has been appointed to fill Dugan’s position indefinitely while the legal process unfolds. The court’s swift action underscores the importance of maintaining public confidence in judicial integrity, particularly when a judge is accused of deliberately undermining federal law enforcement efforts.

Details of the Alleged Obstruction

According to federal prosecutors, Judge Dugan deliberately interfered with ICE agents who were attempting to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a man who was appearing in her courtroom. Court documents indicate that Dugan became visibly angry upon learning of the agents’ presence and intention to take Flores-Ruiz into custody. Instead of allowing the standard arrest procedure, Dugan allegedly escorted Flores-Ruiz and his attorney through a nonpublic jury door – an exit typically not used by defense attorneys or defendants who are not in custody.

The FBI affidavit describes Dugan as confrontational toward the federal agents, suggesting her actions were intentional rather than procedural. This unusual departure from normal courthouse protocol forms the basis for the serious charges of obstructing a government proceeding and concealing an individual to prevent arrest. The situation has highlighted tensions between local judicial authority and federal immigration enforcement responsibilities.

High-Profile Defense Team Assembles

Judge Dugan has assembled an impressive legal team to fight the federal charges. Most notably, former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement has joined her defense. Clement, who served under President George W. Bush, has argued more than 100 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and brings significant legal firepower to Dugan’s case. Her team also includes Steven Biskupic, a former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, and Craig Mastantuono, a prominent defense attorney.

Dugan was released from custody following her arrest and is scheduled to enter a plea on May 15. Her legal team has maintained her innocence throughout the proceedings and expressed confidence that she will be vindicated in court. The case has drawn significant attention as it represents a rare instance of a sitting judge facing federal charges related to immigration enforcement.

Broader Context and Implications

The case against Judge Dugan unfolds against the backdrop of ongoing tensions between federal immigration enforcement and local jurisdictions. Her arrest has sparked protests from some groups who view it as judicial intimidation by federal authorities. Others see it as a necessary enforcement action against a judge who allegedly used her position to deliberately undermine federal law. The charges reflect a broader conflict that has intensified in recent years regarding the proper roles of various government entities in immigration enforcement.

For law enforcement officials and many Americans concerned with border security, the case represents an important test of whether local officials can be held accountable when they actively obstruct federal immigration operations. The outcome of this high-profile case could have significant implications for judicial conduct and the relationship between state courts and federal immigration authorities nationwide.