Mexican man allegedly aided by Wisconsin judge agrees to guilty plea
(Reuters) -A Mexican man who prosecutors say briefly evaded arrest with the help of a Wisconsin judge has agreed to plead guilty to illegally entering the United States.
Federal prosecutors in Milwaukee on Monday filed a plea agreement with Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, 31, resolving an illegal reentry charge filed against him after federal agents had sought his arrest at a Milwaukee courthouse on April 18.
On that date, he appeared before Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan in a battery case, and prosecutors have alleged Dugan misdirected the agents and escorted Flores-Ruiz to a side exit to help him escape. The officers caught him outside the courthouse.
The judge was later indicted on charges of obstruction and concealing a person wanted for arrest. She has pleaded not guilty.
Flores-Ruiz is slated to appear for a plea hearing on August 4. He faces a maximum sentence of two years in prison and agreed to be deported after his sentence, according to the plea agreement.
His lawyer did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A lawyer for Dugan declined to comment.
The case against Dugan came after the U.S. Justice Department under Republican President Donald Trump vowed to investigate local officials who impede the administration's aggressive immigration enforcement.
According to the plea agreement, Flores-Ruiz was deported in 2013 after he first entered the United States, then illegally reentered the country.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
a minute ago
- New York Post
Appeals court allows Trump to cut $2 billion in foreign aid
A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled that President Trump can withhold some $2 billion in foreign aid payments, overturning a lower-court order that had blocked the administration's plans to slash disbursements from the US Agency for International Development (USAID). In a 2-1 ruling, a panel of judges on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia lifted Biden-appointed District Judge Amir Ali's temporary restraining order, which forced USAID to continue making billions of dollars in foreign assistance payments for work already done by organizations the agency contracted with. Ali issued the restraining order in February in response to a lawsuit filed by two nonprofit organizations, the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and Journalism Development Network, after Trump ordered a 90-day pause on foreign aid funding on his first day in office. Advertisement 3 President Trump speaks to the press about deploying federal law enforcement agents in Washington to bolster the local police presence, in the Press Briefing Room at the White House, in Washington, DC, on Aug. 11, 2025. REUTERS Judge Karen Henderson, an appointee of former President George H.W. Bush, noted in the majority opinion Wednesday that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring a case against the Trump administration's funding freeze. 'The district court erred in granting that relief because the grantees lack a cause of action to press their claims,' Henderson wrote. Advertisement The nonprofits had argued that the president exceeded his authority by virtually abolishing USAID and cutting congressionally approved spending. Henderson, joined in the majority by Judge Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee, ruled that under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, only the Government Accountability Office – a congressional watchdog agency – had standing to challenge the president's order to withhold foreign aid. Judge Florence Pan, a Biden appointee, slammed the funding freeze as 'unlawful' and warned it could lead to 'tyranny' in her dissenting opinion. 3 A federal appeals court on Wednesday cleared President Trump to withhold $2 billion in foreign aid, reversing a lower court's block on his plan to cut USAID disbursements. REUTERS Advertisement Start your day with all you need to know Morning Report delivers the latest news, videos, photos and more. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters 'The court's acquiescence in and facilitation of the Executive's unlawful behavior derails the carefully crafted system of checked and balanced power that serves as the greatest security against tyranny – the accumulation of excessive authority in a single Branch,' Pan wrote. A White House Office of Management and Budget spokesperson hailed the ruling, telling Reuters it would halt 'radical left dark money groups' from 'maliciously interfering with the president's ability to spend responsibly and to administer foreign aid in a lawful manner in alignment with his America First policies.' The Trump administration had previously petitioned the Supreme Court to lift Ali's restraining order, but in a 5-4 ruling, the high court rejected the bid. Advertisement 3 President Trump speaks during a visit to the Kennedy Center in Washington, DC, on Aug. 13, 2025. REUTERS In February, the State Department outlined plans to eliminate roughly $60 billion in foreign aid spending and terminate 92% of grants issued by USAID. The figures were included in a State Department memo detailing the results of a foreign aid audit ordered by Trump. The audit identified nearly 15,000 grants and targeted almost 10,000 for elimination — the majority of which were issued by USAID. USAID was one of the first federal agencies that Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency, formerly led by billionaire Elon Musk, targeted for massive cuts based on allegations of widespread waste, fraud and abuse within the agency. In July, Congress approved a White House recession request that clawed back about $8 billion earmarked for USAID.
28 minutes ago
Federal judge refuses to block Alabama law banning DEI initiatives in public schools
A federal judge on Wednesday declined a request to block an Alabama law that bans diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in public schools and the teaching of what Republican lawmakers dubbed 'divisive concepts' related to race and gender. U.S. District Judge David Proctor wrote that University of Alabama students and professors who filed a lawsuit challenging the law as unconstitutional did not meet the legal burden required for a preliminary injunction, which he called 'an extraordinary and drastic remedy.' The civil lawsuit challenging the statute will go forward, but the law will remain in place while it does. The Alabama measure, which took effect Oct. 1, is part of a wave of proposals from Republican lawmakers across the country taking aim at DEI programs on college campuses. The Alabama law prohibits public schools from funding or sponsoring any DEI program. It also prohibits schools from requiring students to assent to eight 'divisive concepts' including that fault, blame or bias should be assigned to a race or sex or that any person should acknowledge a sense of guilt, complicity or a need to apologize because of their race, sex or national origin. Six professors and students at the University of Alabama filed a lawsuit arguing that the law violates the First Amendment by placing viewpoint-based restrictions on what educators teach. The lawsuit also said the law unconstitutionally targets Black students because it limits programs that benefit them. Professors said they had altered what they taught in their classes in the wake of the law and the university's guidance about it. A professor said he reduced coverage of the Black Power movement, the Black Lives Matter movement and the white nationalist movement in the wake of the law. Another said five students had made complaints suggesting that the interdisciplinary honors program she administered had potential conflicts with the new legislation. The university also shuttered designated spaces for the Black Student Union and a resource center for LGBTQ+ students in the wake of the law. Proctor wrote that a professor's academic freedom does not override a university's decisions about the content of classroom instruction. 'Importantly, SB 129 does not banish all teaching or discussion of these concepts from campus or, for that matter, even from the classroom," Proctor wrote. 'To the contrary, it expressly permits classroom instruction that includes 'discussion' of the listed concepts so long as the 'instruction is given in an objective manner without endorsement' of the concepts.' He added that the law appears to give notice about what is a violation. For example, he said a professor could not 'indoctrinate' students to believe that racial health disparities were the fault of one race of people but could still discuss the role of racism in health disparities. 'If, alternatively, the theory she teaches about is that there is empirical evidence that racism may be a cause for health disparities, or if she frames such teaching as merely a theory, she would not violate SB 129,' Proctor wrote. Will Creeley, legal director of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a nonpartisan First Amendment group, criticized the decision as dangerous and at odds with decades of Supreme Court precedent on academic freedom. 'Academic freedom protects the search for knowledge and truth from political pressure. That's the whole point," Creeley wrote in a statement. 'Faculty are hired to share and hone their expertise in a given field of study, not to read from a government script.'
San Francisco Chronicle
31 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump's friendly-to-frustrated relationship with Putin takes the spotlight at the Alaska summit
WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump's summit with Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday could be a decisive moment for both the war in Ukraine and the U.S. leader's anomalous relationship with his Russian counterpart. Trump has long boasted that he's gotten along well with Putin and spoken admiringly of him, even praising him as 'pretty smart' for invading Ukraine. But in recent months, he's expressed frustrations with Putin and threatened more sanctions on his country. At the same time, Trump has offered conflicting messages about his expectations for the summit. He has called it 'really a feel-out meeting' to gauge Putin's openness to a ceasefire but also warned of 'very severe consequences' if Putin doesn't agree to end the war. For Putin, Friday's meeting is a chance to repair his relationship with Trump and unlace the West's isolation of his country following its invasion of Ukraine 3 1/2 years ago. He's been open about his desire to rebuild U.S.-Russia relations now that Trump is back in the White House. The White House has dismissed any suggestion that Trump's agreeing to sit down with Putin is a win for the Russian leader. But critics have suggested that the meeting gives Putin an opportunity to get in Trump's ear to the detriment of Ukraine, whose leader was excluded from the summit. 'I think this is a colossal mistake. You don't need to invite Putin onto U.S. soil to hear what we already know he wants," said Ian Kelly, a retired career foreign service officer who served as the U.S. ambassador to Georgia during the Obama and first Trump administrations. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a longtime Russia hawk and close ally of Trump's, expressed optimism for the summit. 'I have every confidence in the world that the President is going to go to meet Putin from a position of strength, that he's going to look out for Europe and Ukrainian needs to end this war honorably,' Graham wrote on social media. A look back at the ups and downs of Trump and Putin's relationship: Russia questions during the 2016 campaign Months before he was first elected president, Trump cast doubt on findings from U.S. intelligence agencies that Russian government hackers had stolen emails from Democrats, including his opponent Hillary Clinton, and released them in an effort to hurt her campaign and boost Trump's. In one 2016 appearance, he shockingly called on Russian hackers to find emails that Clinton had reportedly deleted. 'Russia, if you're listening,' Trump said, 'I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.' Questions about his connections to Russia dogged much of his first term, touching off investigations by the Justice Department and Congress and leading to the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller, who secured multiple convictions against Trump aides and allies but did not establish proof of a criminal conspiracy between Moscow and the Trump campaign. These days, Trump describes the Russia investigation as an affinity he and Putin shared. 'Putin went through a hell of a lot with me,' Trump said earlier this year. 'He went through a phony witch hunt where they used him and Russia. Russia, Russia, Russia, ever hear of that deal?' Putin in 2019 mocked the investigation and its ultimate findings, saying, "A mountain gave birth to a mouse.' 'He just said it's not Russia' Trump met with Putin six times during his first term, including a 2018 summit in Helsinki, when Trump stunned the world by appearing to side with an American adversary on the question of whether Russia meddled in the 2016 election. 'I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today," Trump said. 'He just said it's not Russia. I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would be." Facing intense blowback, Trump tried to walk back the comment a full 24 hours later. But he raised doubt on that reversal by saying other countries could have also interfered. Putin referred to Helsinki summit as 'the beginning of the path' back from Western efforts to isolate Russia. He also made clear that he had wanted Trump to win in 2016. 'Yes, I wanted him to win because he spoke of normalization of Russian-U.S. ties,' Putin said. 'Isn't it natural to feel sympathy to a person who wanted to develop relations with our country?" Trump calls Putin 'pretty smart' after invasion of Ukraine The two leaders kept up their friendly relationship after Trump left the White House under protest in 2021. After Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022, Trump described the Russian leader in positive terms. 'I mean, he's taking over a country for $2 worth of sanctions. I'd say that's pretty smart,' Trump said at his Mar-a-Lago resort. In a radio interview that week, he suggested that Putin was going into Ukraine to 'be a peacekeeper.' Trump repeatedly said the invasion of Ukraine would never have happened if he had been in the White House — a claim Putin endorsed while lending his support to Trump's false claims of election fraud. 'I couldn't disagree with him that if he had been president, if they hadn't stolen victory from him in 2020, the crisis that emerged in Ukraine in 2022 could have been avoided,' he said. Trump also repeatedly boasted that he could have the fighting 'settled' within 24 hours. Through much of his campaign, Trump criticized U.S. support for Ukraine and derided Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a 'salesman' for persuading Washington to provide weapons and funding to his country. Revisiting the relationship Once he became president, Trump stopped claiming he'd solve the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. In March, he said he was "being a little bit sarcastic' when he said that. Since the early days of Trump's second term, Putin has pushed for a summit while trying to pivot from the Ukrainian conflict by emphasizing the prospect of launching joint U.S.-Russian economic projects, among other issues. 'We'd better meet and have a calm conversation on all issues of interest to both the United States and Russia based on today's realities,' Putin said in January. In February, things looked favorable for Putin when Trump had a blowup with Zelenskyy at the White House, berating him as 'disrespectful." In late March, Trump still spoke of trusting Putin when it came to hopes for a ceasefire, saying, 'I don't think he's going to go back on his word." But a month later, as Russian strikes escalated, Trump posted a public and personal plea on his social media account: 'Vladimir, STOP!' He began voicing more frustration with the Russian leader, saying he was 'Just tapping me along.' In May, he wrote on social media that Putin 'has gone absolutely CRAZY!' Earlier this month, Trump ordered the repositioning of two U.S. nuclear submarines 'based on the highly provocative statements' of the country's former president, Dmitry Medvedev. Trump's vocal protests about Putin have tempered somewhat since he announced their meeting, but so have his predictions for what he might accomplish. Speaking to reporters Monday, Trump described their upcoming summit not as the occasion in which he'd finally get the conflict 'settled' but instead as 'really a feel-out meeting, a little bit.' 'I think it'll be good,' Trump said. 'But it might be bad.'
