The trial of Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan, accused of aiding a man in evading immigration enforcement, is set to commence on December 15. Pretrial motions are currently underway as both the defense and prosecution negotiate which pieces of evidence and expert testimonies will be presented to the jury. This case, garnering significant attention, has critical implications for the judicial system and immigration enforcement practices.
Dugan’s legal issues began on April 18 when federal agents arrived at the courthouse to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a man suspected of being in the country illegally. Dugan requested to see a judicial warrant—a document signed by a judge—but the agents only had an administrative warrant from the Department of Homeland Security. Following consultations with the chief judge, Dugan allegedly facilitated Flores-Ruiz’s departure from the courthouse through a side exit, claiming his court appearance would occur via Zoom.
The judge faces two federal charges: obstructing a proceeding, a felony, and misdemeanor charges of concealing an individual to prevent their arrest. The legal debate hinges on the interpretation of various aspects of these charges, particularly whether Dugan’s actions constituted actual obstruction. Dugan’s attorneys argue that she did not impede a federal proceeding since agents had not initiated one at the time, and they plan to call on immigration attorney Theodore Chadwick to provide expert testimony.
Federal prosecutors, however, are pushing back against the relevance of Chadwick’s testimony and argue that Dugan’s actions represented a clear violation of the law. They maintain the stance that the charges don’t require a successful arrest or strict definitions of concealment and obstruction.
After eventually being apprehended outside the courthouse, Flores-Ruiz pleaded no contest to a battery charge in his domestic abuse case and was deported in mid-November. Legal experts note that the arrest adds a layer of complexity to the prosecution’s argument, as it may challenge claims of harm to the federal government from Dugan’s actions.
There’s a broader concern about the implications of this trial, particularly regarding the role of judges and the nature of immigration enforcement within courtrooms. Observers, such as UC-Davis law professor Kevin Johnson, suggest that the government’s pursuit of this case may send a message to judges about their conduct regarding immigration cases.
As pretrial proceedings continue, both sides prepare for jury selection on December 11. Additionally, discussions of a potential plea deal have emerged, though Dugan has maintained her innocence amid the escalating situation. The outcome of this case may have long-lasting effects on the balance of judicial discretion and federal immigration policy enforcement.