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