Month: May 2025

A Wisconsin judge has entered a plea of not guilty to federal charges alleging she interfered with the arrest of a migrant outside her courtroom.

On Thursday, Wisconsin Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan entered a plea of not guilty to federal charges accusing her of interfering with an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operation. Dugan is accused of obstructing justice and hiding an individual sought by federal authorities.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Dries accepted Dugan’s not guilty plea to two felony counts: obstructing an official proceeding and concealing an individual to prevent federal agents from locating and arresting him. Judge Dries scheduled the next court appearance for July 9 and set July 21 as the start date for Dugan’s trial. Neither Judge Dugan nor her attorney Steven Biskupic commented on whether they expect the case to proceed to trial.

The charges stem from an incident on April 18, when Dugan was presiding over a domestic violence case involving Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, who was accused of attacking his roommate and two other individuals during a dispute over loud music, according to local police records. Prosecutors allege that Dugan intentionally misled federal agents who were attempting to detain Flores-Ruiz due to his immigration status. According to the indictment, she confronted ICE officers in the courthouse hallway and then personally led Flores-Ruiz out of her courtroom, allowing him to evade immediate arrest. Although Flores-Ruiz temporarily escaped, ICE agents eventually apprehended him after a brief foot pursuit.

Dugan was taken into custody on April 25, with FBI Director Kash Patel stating that investigators believe she deliberately diverted federal agents to help Flores-Ruiz avoid arrest. Following her arrest, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a temporary suspension, removing Dugan from her duties on the bench pending the outcome of the case.

A day before her court appearance, Dugan’s legal team filed a motion requesting the dismissal of the charges. The motion argued that Dugan’s actions are protected by judicial immunity and claimed that federal authorities had overstepped their constitutional boundaries, citing the 10th Amendment – and contending that federal immigration officers lack the authority to arrest a sitting state judge within her own courthouse. Her attorneys argued in the filing that “even if the evidence were to suggest Judge Dugan did what the indictment alleges, those actions would be part of her official judicial duties, which grant her complete immunity from criminal prosecution. Judges are specifically empowered to manage the proceedings within their courtrooms and, more broadly, oversee activities in the courthouse. Prosecuting a state court judge for performing her official functions would violate the constitutional principles that underlie the 10th Amendment.”

Judge Dugan, who was first elected to the bench in 2016, has a long history of advocating for low-income clients, particularly in cases involving civil rights violations and domestic violence.

Editorial credit: Christopher Penler / Shutterstock.com

The U.S. Supreme Court signaled hesitation over letting President Donald Trump’s controversial attempt to redefine birthright citizenship proceed while lawsuits challenging the policy are still ongoing.

The high court expressed skepticism as it grilled the federal government’s lawyer on Thursday over Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship through executive order, and questioned how the controversial plan could be put into effect.  The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of three lower court rulings that halted the policy nationwide.

The case centers on Trump’s proposal to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. unless at least one parent is a citizen or legal resident. This would mark a sharp departure from the longstanding interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to nearly all born on U.S. soil.

In an uncommon move, the justices heard arguments concerning several emergency appeals by the Trump administration. These appeals aim to limit the reach of nationwide injunctions that halted Trump’s birthright citizenship order almost immediately after it was issued in January. The justices intensely debated the broader question of when nationwide injunctions are appropriate over more than two hours of arguments; however, when it came specifically to birthright citizenship, a majority appeared to believe in this instance that blocking the policy nationwide may have been warranted—especially in lawsuits brought by states.

New Jersey’s Solicitor General warned that limiting injunctions would cause chaos, as people move between states and inconsistent citizenship rulings would be unworkable.  Conservative justices including Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh, acknowledged these concerns and questioned the feasibility of enforcing Trump’s plan unevenly across the country.

Firmly opposed to allowing Trump’s policy to proceed were liberal justices, who emphasized its conflict with constitutional precedents. Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the administration’s legal arguments, while Justice Elena Kagan expressed doubt that the government could implement the plan effectively within the proposed timeframe.

Lower courts have unanimously blocked Trump’s policy, prompting the administration to seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court. Depending on the ruling, the policy could be enforced in some states but not others, raising concerns about legal uniformity.

Despite not directly addressing the constitutional validity of Trump’s proposal, the Court’s decision on the scope of injunctions could affect how similar executive actions are challenged in the future.  In addition, the outcome of this case could reshape how courts block federal policies, with major implications beyond just immigration.

Editorial credit: Fedor Selivanov / Shutterstock.com