Indicted Milwaukee Judge Tries to Dismiss Federal Case After Allegedly Aiding Illegal Immigrant Escape ICE Arrest
Accused of Obstruction, Judge Claims Immunity Under Tenth Amendment and Judicial Privilege
Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan, who was indicted by a federal grand jury on two counts of obstruction for allegedly helping an illegal alien evade arrest by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), has moved to dismiss the case on constitutional grounds—just one day after the indictment was handed down.
Dugan is facing up to six years in prison and $350,000 in fines if convicted. Her legal team is now invoking the Tenth Amendment, judicial immunity, and her “official acts” as a judge in an attempt to quash the federal charges before trial.
The Alleged Obstruction: A Judge Thwarts Federal Agents
According to the criminal complaint and FBI statements, Dugan intentionally misled ICE agents who had arrived at her courthouse to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an illegal immigrant and domestic abuse suspect. She is accused of:
- Directing ICE agents to wait in a different judge’s chambers
- Expediting Flores-Ruiz’s hearing to facilitate a covert exit
- Escorting the illegal alien through a private jury door to evade arrest
- Holding the hearing “off the record” and later shifting proceedings to Zoom
FBI Director Kash Patel was blunt in his assessment:
“Judge Dugan intentionally misdirected federal agents away from the subject to be arrested at her courthouse. Her actions were a direct obstruction of justice.”
Defense Strategy: A Constitutional Shield?
Dugan’s legal team quickly filed a motion to dismiss, making sweeping claims about judicial immunity, federalism, and the Tenth Amendment:
“These were plainly judicial acts,” the motion argues. “Judges are empowered to maintain control over their courtrooms and the courthouse generally.”
The filing goes further, asserting that even if Dugan carried out the alleged acts, she cannot be prosecuted because her conduct falls under official judicial functions—thus granting her absolute immunity.
“The government’s prosecution of Judge Dugan is virtually unprecedented and entirely unconstitutional,” the motion claims. “It violates the Tenth Amendment and fundamental principles of federalism.”
Federal Prosecutors: Obstruction Is Not a Protected Act
Legal experts note that judicial immunity does not extend to intentional obstruction of federal law enforcement, especially when actions are taken outside the scope of adjudicating a case and involve interfering with federal jurisdiction.
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution gives the federal government the upper hand in immigration enforcement, and states—and judges—cannot unilaterally nullify or block federal law.
If Dugan aided a suspect’s escape, legal scholars say the Tenth Amendment defense is irrelevant.
“This isn’t a policy disagreement—it’s obstruction,” said former DOJ official Hans von Spakovsky. “Judicial immunity doesn’t cover aiding and abetting fugitives from federal law enforcement.”
The Bigger Picture: Defiance of Federal Immigration Law
The Dugan case isn’t isolated—it reflects a growing pattern of local and state officials actively defying federal immigration law, often under the banner of “sanctuary” politics.
From city councils banning police-ICE cooperation, to prosecutors refusing to charge illegal alien offenders, and now judges allegedly helping suspects flee, the Dugan indictment is a national flashpoint in the battle over lawful immigration enforcement.
What Happens Next
The motion to dismiss now goes before a federal judge, who will decide whether Dugan’s constitutional arguments hold legal weight—or whether she must face trial.
If the motion is denied, the case could proceed to trial later this year, where the video surveillance, agent testimony, and courtroom records may play a central role.
Conclusion: Immunity or Impunity?
Judge Dugan’s legal team wants to frame her actions as protected judicial discretion. Federal prosecutors say it was deliberate interference with an arrest warrant. The outcome could set a powerful precedent on how far judges can go in defying or obstructing immigration enforcement—and whether rule of law can survive partisan resistance in the courtroom itself.