Milwaukee judge not immune from charges after allegedly helping illegal immigrant evade ICE, prosecutors say
Dugan, 65, was indicted last month on federal charges of obstruction of proceedings before a U.S. agency and unlawful concealment of an individual subject to arrest.
Her attorneys say she is entitled to judicial immunity and that the federal government overstepped its authority by arresting and charging her, violating her 10th Amendment rights and the principle of separation of powers, according to court documents filed in late May.
On Wednesday, prosecutors filed a response to her motion to dismiss, noting that "the Supreme Court has made clear that judges are not immune from criminal liability."
Wisconsin Judge Claims 'Absolute Immunity,' Calls Doj Indictment An 'Ugly Innovation'
"In the end, Dugan asks for this Court to develop a novel doctrine of judicial immunity from criminal prosecution, and to apply it to the facts alleged in the indictment, all without reasonable basis—directly or indirectly—in the Constitution, statutes, or case law," prosecutors wrote.
Read On The Fox News App
"In her lengthy memorandum, Dugan concedes that '[j]udges, like legislators and executive officials, are not above the law,'" they said.
"Dugan's desired ruling would, in essence, say that judges are 'above the law,' and uniquely entitled to interfere with federal law enforcement," prosecutors added.
Federal prosecutors allege that the Milwaukee Circuit Court judge personally escorted Mexican illegal immigrant and domestic battery suspect Eduardo Flores-Ruiz out of the courthouse on April 18 while ICE agents were attempting to serve a warrant.
New Footage Shows Milwaukee Judge Confronting Ice Before Allegedly Helping Illegal Immigrant Exit
The surveillance footage recently released by Milwaukee County in response to an open records request appears to show Dugan, wearing her black robe, confronting ICE agents in the courthouse hallway.
Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan To Enter Plea In Federal Court
Federal prosecutors say members of ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), along with federal partners from the FBI, DEA, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, were preparing to serve Flores-Ruiz with a warrant in a public courthouse hallway on April 18 before his scheduled court appearance with Dugan.
WATCH THE SURVEILLANCE FOOTAGE:
After becoming aware of what federal officials described as a valid immigration arrest warrant for Flores-Ruiz, Dugan allegedly told agents that they needed a judicial warrant and told them to go to the chief judge's office.
The agents then left their place in the hallway, at which point Dugan allegedly chose not to hold a hearing for Flores-Ruiz and "personally escorted" the suspect and his attorney through a private exit while the victims of his alleged crimes were in the courthouse at the time, the Justice Department said in a press release.
Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan Indicted After Allegedly Helping Illegal Alien Evade Ice
While Dugan argues that ICE agents interrupted goings-on in the courthouse on April 18, prosecutors say it was Dugan who disrupted proceedings.
"The evidence also will show that agents were not in the courtroom when Dugan took the bench, but that—after being told by a member of her staff that ICE agents were present in the hallway—Dugan chose to pause an unrelated case, leave her courtroom, disrupt proceedings in a colleague's courtroom to commandeer her assistance, and then confront agents in the public hallway," the filing says.
Wisconsin Judge Accused Of Obstructing Ice Could Face Years In Prison, Doj Has 'Upper Hand': Former Prosecutor
Prosecutors say evidence also shows Dugan directing agents to the chief judge's office even while knowing he was out, then she "quickly returned to her courtroom and, among other things, directed [Florez-Ruiz's] attorney to 'take your client out and come back and get a date; and then to go through the jury door and down the stairs' before physically escorting [Flroes-Ruiz] and his attorney into a non-public hallway with access to a stairwell that led to a courthouse exit," filings say.
Dugan "did this all just days after thanking a colleague for providing information which explained that ICE could lawfully make arrests in the courthouse hall," prosecutors stated Wednesday.
"Put simply, nothing in the indictment or the anticipated evidence at trial supports Dugan's assertion that agents 'disrupted' the court's docket; instead, all events arose from Dugan's unilateral, non-judicial, and unofficial actions in obstructing a federal immigration matter over which she, as a Wisconsin state judge, had no authority," the document reads. "At the very least, for purposes of deciding this motion, Dugan's claims to the contrary find no support in the indictment and should be rejected."
One of Dugan's defense attorneys, Dean Strang, told Fox News Digital that her counsel has a "good reply" to prosecutors' Wednesday filing, but her team is waiting until their reply brief, due next Monday, to make it.
The Milwaukee judge has pleaded not guilty to charges filed against her, and a federal judge has set her trial date for July 21.
A federal indictment accuses Dugan of "falsely" telling federal officials in April that they needed a warrant to come into her courtroom during a scheduled appearance by Flores-Ruiz, an undocumented Mexican national facing three misdemeanor battery charges.
Video footage appears to show Flores-Ruiz exiting the courthouse with his attorney, while an ICE agent follows him, and then running alongside the building for about a block before agents capture and arrest him.
Federal officials arrested Dugan a week after the courthouse incident.
Dugan could face a maximum sentence of six years. She has pleaded not guilty to the charges filed against her. Fox News Digital has reached out to her attorney, Craig Mastantuono, for comment on the footage.
In April, Dugan's legal team also filed a motion to dismiss the federal case against her, saying the judge "is entitled to judicial immunity for her official acts."
"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," the motion said.
Fox News Digital's Rachel Wolf contributed to this report.Original article source: Milwaukee judge not immune from charges after allegedly helping illegal immigrant evade ICE, prosecutors say
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
2 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Critics say President Trump's push for fairness in college admissions is leaving out legacy preferences
Advertisement 'It's hard to think of a more flagrant way in which the system is rigged than legacy preferences,' Kahlenberg said. 'Rarely is a system of hereditary privilege so openly practiced without any sense of shame.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up In recent weeks, Trump has taken several actions to scrub any vestiges of race from admissions decisions, suggesting that some schools are ignoring a 2023 Supreme Court decision striking down affirmative action. His administration negotiated settlements with Brown and Columbia universities that included provisions to share admissions data. Last week, Trump issued a call for colleges nationwide to submit data to prove they do not consider race in admissions. Trump has taken several actions to scrub any vestiges of race from admissions decisions, suggesting that some schools are ignoring a 2023 Supreme Court decision striking down affirmative action. Alex Brandon/Associated Press Some are urging Trump to go further. Sen. Todd Young, R-Ind., applauded the settlement with Brown requiring the university to turn a blind eye toward race — even in application essays. But 'restoring meritocracy warrants more,' said Young, who cosponsored legislation in 2023 aiming to end legacy admissions. Advertisement 'Federally accredited institutions should eliminate ALL preferences grounded in arbitrary circumstances of ancestry that students have no control over, such as legacy status,' Young said on social media. Many selective colleges consider family ties Sometimes called 'affirmative action for the rich,' the practice of legacy admissions remains widespread among elite colleges even as it faces mounting bipartisan opposition. Virginia's Republican governor signed a bill last year barring legacy admissions at public institutions, following similar measures in Colorado, California and elsewhere. Some Republicans in Congress have worked with Democrats on proposals to end it nationwide. Roughly 500 universities consider legacy status when evaluating applicants, including more than half of the nation's 100 most selective U.S. schools, according to 2023 disclosures to the federal government. A few have abandoned the policy, but it remains in place at all eight Ivy League schools. Stanford University said in July it will continue considering legacy status, even after a California law barred it at institutions that receive state financial aid. Stanford opted to withdraw from the state's student financial aid program rather than end the practice. The university said it will replace the funding with internal money — even as it begins layoffs to close a $140 million budget deficit. Stanford officials declined to comment. Last year, as part of a state transparency law, the school reported that about 14% of its new students were relatives of alumni or donors. A push for merit, but no mention of legacy admissions The executive action signed by Trump last week requires universities to turn over more information about students who apply to and are accepted to their campuses. Taxpayers 'deserve confidence in the fairness and integrity' of decisions, his memorandum said, adding that more information is needed to ensure colleges are heeding the Supreme Court's decision. Advertisement A week earlier, the Justice Department issued a memo clarifying what it considers illegal discrimination in admissions. It takes issue not only with overt racial considerations but also 'proxies' for race, including 'geographic targeting' or personal essays asking about obstacles applicants have overcome. Similar language requiring 'merit-based' admissions policies was included in the government's resolutions with Brown and Columbia universities. None of the actions made any mention of legacy admissions. Trump's silence caught the attention of the nonprofit Lawyers for Civil Rights, which has an open complaint with the Education Department alleging that Harvard University's use of donor and alumni preferences amounts to illegal racial discrimination. The group's 2023 complaint says the practice overwhelmingly benefits white students. If the Trump administration wants to make admissions a meritocracy, it should start by ending legacy preferences, said Oren Sellstrom, litigation director for the group. 'These deeply unmeritocratic preferences simply reward students based on who their parents are. It's hard to imagine anything more unfair or contrary to basic merit principles,' he said. Few Americans support legacy or donor preferences Colleges defend the practice by saying it builds community and encourages families to become donors. Some backers say it increasingly helps nonwhite students as campuses become more diverse. Then-President Joe Biden, a Democrat, urged colleges to rethink legacy preferences in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, saying it expanded 'privilege instead of opportunity.' Some feared it would drive up white enrollment as affirmative action ended. Georgetown University reviewed the policy but kept it in place this year after concluding the pool of legacy applicants had a similar makeup to the wider admissions pool. Advertisement An AP-NORC poll in 2023 found that most Americans have a dim view of legacy and donor preferences, with few saying either should play a strong role in decisions. Universities are required to tell the federal government whether they consider legacy status, but they don't have to divulge how far it tips the scale or how many legacy students they admit. Among the 20 most selective universities that say they employ the practice, none would tell The Associated Press what percentage of their incoming class has a family connection to alumni or donors. Trump's blitz to root out racial preferences has hinged on the argument that it undermines merit. New scrutiny is needed to ensure colleges are following the Supreme Court's order and 'recruiting and training capable future doctors, engineers, scientists' and other workers, he said in his executive action. That argument sends the message that minority students are 'intellectually suspect until proven otherwise,' said Justin Driver, a Yale law professor with a forthcoming book on affirmative action. He worries Trump's latest actions will intimidate colleges into limiting minority enrollment to avoid raising the suspicion of the government. 'I believe that the United States confronts a lot of problems today,' Driver said. 'Too many Black students on first-rate college campuses is not among them.'
Newsweek
3 minutes ago
- Newsweek
ICE Makes Major Change for New Recruits
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) no longer requires new recruits to take a five-week Spanish-language training program, according to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). "ICE simply replaced the five-week in-person Spanish course with a more robust translation service for all officers regardless of when they entered on duty," DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in an emailed statement to Newsweek. The Intercept first reported the policy change. DHS did not provide details of the translation service. However, Axon, a company with a $5.1 million contract to provide Homeland Security with body-worn cameras, advertises that its latest body camera includes real-time "push-to-talk voice translation" in more than 50 languages. A deportation officer with Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducts a brief before an operation in the Bronx borough of New York on December 17, 2024. A deportation officer with Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducts a brief before an operation in the Bronx borough of New York on December 17, 2024. Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP Why It Matters President Donald Trump's hard-line immigration agenda has pushed ICE into the center of the national conversation surrounding immigration enforcement. Since the beginning of Trump's second term, thousands of suspected undocumented migrants have been arrested. Last month, Republicans passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which increased funding for ICE—allocating $45 billion to expand detention capacity to almost 100,000 beds, $14 billion for transportation and deportation operations, $8 billion to hire 10,000 additional deportation officers, and additional funding for technology upgrades. ICE is expected to experience a hiring boom after the passage of the key legislation. DHS has said that more than 100,000 people have already applied to join the nation's top immigration enforcement agency. The legislation is expected to support the administration's efforts to accelerate deportations as Trump seeks to fulfill his pledge of widespread mass deportations. What To Know The decision reflects both the federal government's increasing reliance on translation technology and a broader trend under the Trump administration toward scaling back non-English services. Speaking of the new service, McLaughlin said, "This translation service allows our officers to communicate with individuals with all dialects and dozens of different languages." Earlier this year, after Trump issued an executive order designating English as the official language of the United States, several agencies reduced multilingual assistance—despite the order stating that it did not require changes to agency services. DHS, for example, will no longer provide translation help for callers seeking information about employment status or benefits. Given that the vast majority of those arrested by ICE are from predominantly Spanish-speaking Latin American countries, the removal of formal Spanish training for officers is a significant operational shift. ICE's Spanish-language requirement dates back to its predecessor, the Immigration and Naturalization Service's Office of Detention and Removal Operations, which maintained the policy until March 2003, when the office was absorbed into ICE under the newly created DHS. ICE reinstated the program in 2007. In 2010, the Government Accountability Office—Congress' nonpartisan research agency—warned that DHS's failure to adequately assess its language needs posed operational risks. "According to DHS officials, foreign language skills are an integral part of the department's operations," the report said, adding, "These officials told us that while Spanish language proficiency may be identified as an existing capability, it may not always be available and generally the levels of proficiencies vary." In a 2007 memo, ICE described its Spanish-language training program as a five-week course to strengthen listening, speaking, reading and writing skills, with an emphasis on the first two. By 2016, the curriculum shifted to focus on grammar and the ability to perform arrests and complete related documentation. In addition to dropping the Spanish-language training, DHS announced in August that ICE would lower the minimum applicant age from 21 to 18 and remove the previous maximum age limit, which barred applicants over the age of 37 or 40. What People Are Saying DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in an emailed statement to Newsweek: "We are using technology not only to save U.S. taxpayer dollars but to also broaden our ability to communicate with illegal aliens we regularly encounter from countries across the globe."
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Why in the world is Trump punishing Moldova with tariffs?
President Trump's tariff blasts continue. The White House released its latest list on July 31 and it is clear that no nation is safe — not allies, enemies, neighbors or distant lands. No menacing power escapes the vigilance of the president's team, ever alert to those 'ripping off' the United States of America. Case in point: Moldova. Dominating both sides of the Dniester River — well, one side actually — this Eastern European colossus of 2.3 million people (about the size of Houston) could inflict mortal damage on the American economy. In 2024 alone, the U.S. bought nearly $136 million (with an 'm') worth of goods from the Moldovans, whereas they bought only $51 million from us. With the U.S. economy valued at more than $30 trillion (with a 'T') we could probably only bear such abuse for … well, forever. In a July 9 letter to Moldovan President Maia Sandu, Trump made clear that America will not be bullied by Moldova any longer. He imposed a tariff of 25 percent on every bottle of wine or fruit juice the Moldovans force us to buy. Calling the deficit with Moldova a 'major threat to our Economy and, indeed, our National Security!' the president warned of even higher tariffs if Moldova retaliates or tries to send goods into the U.S. through transshipment. The letter accuses Moldova of taking advantage of us for 'many years.' Tariff rates are one of Trump's favorite weapons, employed under the dubious premise that the U.S. faces a trade deficit 'emergency.' The legality of such action aside — the Supreme Court has yet to rule — the president uses this weapon for a variety of non-economic goals. He has threatened Canada for indicating it might recognize a Palestinian state, and Brazil to try to save former President Jair Bolsonaro from prosecution. Moldova has committed no such offenses — at least none charged — but Trump wants trade with Moldova and a host of other countries to be based on 'reciprocity.' Whatever the precipitating dynamics, punishing Moldova for its involvement in international trade serves no reasonable Western security or broader policy interests. It undermines them. Sandwiched between Ukraine and Romania, Moldova has a long history of not being a country. The people of this region, who were unwillingly traded between Romania and Russia for nearly a century, gained independence from a collapsing Soviet Union in 1991. With a population that is 75 percent Moldovan-Romanian, some within the Russian and Ukrainian minorities feared the country's absorption into neighboring Romania. During a brief internal war in 1992, Moscow positioned a 'peacekeeping force' on the eastern side of Dniester River to guard the self-proclaimed state of Transnistria — which is still there, not recognized even by Russia. This force is small, locally recruited and considered less than formidable. But it is part of a sustained campaign by Moscow to prevent Moldova from embracing the West. This same motive drove Vladimir Putin to unleash a brutal invasion and occupation of much larger Ukraine. If victorious there, he is unlikely to be more accommodating toward Moldova. Moldova is the poorest country in Europe, and its elected leaders and population have been seeking stability. After Russia invaded Ukraine, Moldova applied to join the EU. It was quickly granted candidate status, and negotiations for membership began. In 2024, the country reelected pro-EU President Sandu and in a referendum enshrined the country's 'European course' in its constitution — despite massive Russian interference and disinformation. The EU has not been cowed by Moscow and developed a generous aid and development package. Most Moldovan goods enter the world's largest trading bloc duty-free, a policy that was further extended to agricultural products last month. Under President Biden, the U.S. had been similarly supportive, providing more than $400 million in military and humanitarian aid in part to help reduce the country's dependence on Russian gas. Trump sees no need for aid to Moldova, or indeed for most foreign assistance. Other moves supporting Trump's 'America First' orientation also penalize Moldova. Eliminating the U.S. Agency for International Development meant the loss of virtually all projects in Moldova — including for democracy promotion and economic and energy development. At the same time, cutting resources for election monitoring and an independent press leaves the field open for Russian interference. Such indifference, along with Trump's shifting attitude toward Ukraine and transactional foreign policy, leaves Moldova exposed. A study by the Stimson Center concluded, 'With a White House that seems increasingly eager to align its perspectives with Moscow at the expense of traditional allies, its willingness to support Moldova's democratic transformation in the face of Russian opposition is now uncertain.' Neighboring Romania, a member of both the EU and NATO, has a huge stake in the fate of Moldova. An intimidated or occupied satellite country — a second Belarus — on the Alliance's more than 400-mile border would dramatically change the strategic equation. This should get Washington's attention — at least of those willing to honor the American commitment to NATO. Preserving an independent and economically healthy Moldova thus serves European and American interests. Increasing the cost of doing business with the U.S. and damaging democratic efforts there does not. Supporting Moldova costs the U.S. very little. Excusing a tiny trade deficit to a strategically important democracy does not make Americans suckers. Helping Moldova does not require a military commitment. The country has been cooperating with NATO but is constitutionally neutral. Rather than punishing the country, the U.S. could and should offer support. This could be based on a view of the geopolitical map — or, even better, from an appreciation of a resilient people's desire for democratic choice. Ronald H. Linden is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Pittsburgh, where he directed the Center for European Studies and the Center for Russian and East European Studies.
