Federal prosecutors have urged a U.S. District Court to proceed with criminal charges against Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan, who stands accused of obstructing immigration enforcement by allegedly aiding a man in evading arrest by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This request was made in a court filing on Monday afternoon, as prosecutors responded to Dugan’s motion to dismiss the charges.
Dugan faces charges including obstructing a federal proceeding and concealing an individual to prevent their arrest. The prosecution claims that during an incident in April, she led the individual, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, out of her courtroom through a side door, aware that ICE was present to apprehend him.
Dugan’s defense argues that she enjoys judicial immunity which should protect her actions from federal prosecution. Her attorneys contend that the arrest represents an overreach of federal power and a violation of Wisconsin’s sovereignty. They describe the prosecution as an extraordinary threat to both federalism and judicial independence.
Prosecutors, however, assert that Dugan’s actions were unilateral, non-judicial, and beyond her authority as a state judge. They caution that dismissing the case would risk creating a precedent that allows state judges to interfere with federal law enforcement operations. Law professor Carl Tobias expressed that the U.S. attorneys’ response is a strong rejection of Dugan’s defense strategies.
In support of Dugan, more than 100 former judges have filed a brief citing the importance of judicial independence, arguing that Dugan acted within her authority to manage courtroom matters. The case has drawn public protests in Milwaukee, with demonstrators advocating for Dugan and expressing criticisms of immigration policies during the Trump administration.
A federal grand jury previously found probable cause to indict Dugan, who has pleaded not guilty to charges and is currently suspended from judicial duties pending the outcome of her case. Given the notable attention and legal ramifications surrounding this case, the upcoming trial set for late July may be preceded by further oral arguments concerning Dugan’s motion to dismiss.
This ongoing saga underscores the complexities at the intersection of state judicial authority and federal immigration enforcement, raising important questions about the limits of judicial immunity and the balance of power within the legal system. As the case unfolds, it presents an opportunity for significant discussions on the role and independence of judges in navigating contentious legal issues.