A judge in Wisconsin is set to stand trial on Monday after she allegedly tried to help an illegal immigrant evade deportation earlier this year.
Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan faces charges of obstruction and “concealing an individual to prevent his discovery and arrest” after she allegedly escorted 31-year-old Eduardo Flores-Ruiz out of a back door of her courtroom so he would not be apprehended by immigration agents waiting to detain him.
The Escape Attempt
According to a government affidavit, Flores-Ruiz was in Dugan’s court on April 18, awaiting a hearing on three counts of domestic abuse.The Mexican native had previously been deported from the United States in 2013, but reentered at an unknown time. Upon learning of his charges and hearing, immigration authorities secured a warrant for his arrest on April 17.
After a courtroom deputy learned that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents were at the hearing to take Flores-Ruiz into custody, he asked them to wait outside and arrest him when the hearing was over.
They agreed.
But when Judge Dugan learned about the immigration officials, she “became visibly angry, commented that the situation was ‘absurd,’ left the bench, and entered chambers,” according to witnesses.
Dugan and another judge then confronted the immigration officials, telling them that their administrative warrant was not sufficient to arrest Flores-Ruiz; they needed a judicial warrant. She told the group of officers that they needed to speak to the chief judge of the courthouse.
While they were being escorted to the chief judge’s chambers, Dugan allegedly returned to her courtroom and led Flores-Ruiz and his attorney through a backroom jury door.
Judge Says She Is Immune
Meanwhile, Dugan was arrested for her alleged part in his attempted escape and indicted by a grand jury in May.The government says Dugan violated Title 18 U.S.C. Sections 1505 and 1071: obstruction of pending proceedings and concealing a person from arrest. If convicted, she faces six years in prison.
“The government’s prosecution of Judge Dugan is virtually unprecedented and entirely unconstitutional,” her attorneys wrote in their filing.
“Immunity is not a defense to the prosecution to be determined later by a jury or court; it is an absolute bar to the prosecution at the outset.”
Apart from the immunity claim, the judge argues that the 10th Amendment bars the federal government from intruding on the state’s “police power.”
“The government’s prosecution here reaches directly into a state courthouse, disrupting active proceedings, and interferes with the official duties of an elected judge,” her response argued.
U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman rejected Dugan’s arguments in August and ordered her to stand trial.
The Upcoming Trial
Dugan’s trial is set to begin Dec. 15, and jury selection is underway. Because the case has gained wide public attention—through media coverage and social media statements by officials, including FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi—the defense has expressed concern that the judge will not get a fair hearing.They have sent potential jurors a questionnaire probing which media outlets they use, their political leanings, and which stickers are attached to their vehicles, laptops, and water bottles.
The defense team is asking the judge to exclude audio recordings of the courtroom while the incident took place on the grounds that the judge was not present and the conversations may prejudice the jury against her.
