24 ms·

FBI arrests judge accused of helping man evade immigration authorities

• anonfordays 1y ago
  [flagged]
• oldpersonintx 1y ago
  [dead]
• bko 1y ago
  https://archive.is/QyBBU https://archive.is/QyBBU
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
• yesco 1y ago
  https://archive.is/QyBBU https://archive.is/QyBBU
• Der_Einzige 1y ago
  [flagged]
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
• basedkash 1y ago
  [flagged]
• basedkash0 1y ago
  [flagged]
• underseacables 1y ago
  This seems lite on facts. Even if I wanted to arrest a sitting judge, it would have to be an act of gross malfeasance to motivate me to even consider arrest. The only thing I can think of… Is, if the judge swore under oath, affidavit, or something like that, that she did not do something when in fact that she did. But even then… If Patel does not come back with some thing on that level or better, then this was a horrible farce.
  • _mlbt 1y ago
    [flagged]
    • amanaplanacanal 1y ago
      Which crime is that exactly? It can't be aiding illegal immigration if the immigrant is already inside the US.
      • boroboro4 1y ago
        I thought so too, but turned out I'm wrong: > Key prohibited actions under 8 U.S.C. § 1324 include: > Bringing in or Attempting to Bring in Aliens: Assisting a non-citizen to enter or try to enter the U.S. at a place other than an official port of entry. > Transporting: Moving or attempting to move a non-citizen within the U.S., knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that the non-citizen has entered or remains in the U.S. unlawfully, and acting in furtherance of their unlawful presence. > Harboring or Concealing: Concealing, harboring, or shielding (or attempting to do so) a non-citizen from detection, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that the non-citizen has entered or remains in the U.S. unlawfully. "Harboring" generally means providing shelter but can also include other forms of assistance that help the person evade immigration authorities. > Encouraging or Inducing: Encouraging or inducing a non-citizen to come to, enter, or reside in the U.S., knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such entry or residence is or will be in violation of law. > Conspiracy or Aiding/Abetting: Engaging in a conspiracy to commit, or aiding or abetting the commission of, any of the above acts. TBH those are some quite terrible laws =(
• acdha 1y ago
  Source: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/breaking/2025/04/25/milwaukee-county-judge-hannah-dugan-arrested-by-feds-at-courthouse/83270885007/ https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/breaking/2025/04/25/milw...
  • trelane 1y ago
    This is a much, much more informative source. Thanks!
• eterps 1y ago
  > The New York Times observes that Kash Patel has now deleted his tweet (for unknown reasons) and adds that the charging documents are still not available. https://bsky.app/profile/sethabramson.bsky.social/post/3lnnjm6xao22w https://bsky.app/profile/sethabramson.bsky.social/post/3lnnj...
  • axus 1y ago
    [flagged]
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  • crypteasy 1y ago
    Kash Patel tweeting in real-time indicates that he aware of it and at some-level involved with the arrest. It also shows that he sees this as a totally reasonable action and response - and wants the public to know about it.
• jmclnx 1y ago
  [flagged]
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
• whoknowsidont 1y ago
  Democratic states really need to start disallowing federal agents to operate within their borders and band together. Activate their respective national guards and make it happen. Yes, that means defying federal law. Yes that means exactly the consequences you want to draw from those actions. There is no other option at this point. The law is dead in the U.S.
  • baggy_trough 1y ago
    [flagged]
    • whoknowsidont 1y ago
      Please, list them. And be exceedingly honest, rational, and evidence-based about how effective those courses of actions would be.
      • nh23423fefe 1y ago
        Lol, before it was civil war, now its explain yourself point by point.
        • whoknowsidont 1y ago
          I stated a position and viewpoint, GP said "no that's not the only option." but didn't elucidate anything. So yeah, state something affirmative that can be responded to. And again, don't be disingenuous about how effective those options would be, this is not the same America we were in even 4 months ago.
          • nh23423fefe 1y ago
            I mean, the objects in your ontology don't even exist, "Democratic states" Just say you hate your fellow citizens and stop dressing up your weird violence?
      • ihsw 1y ago
• like_any_other 1y ago
  > Patel announced the arrest of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan in a post on the social media platform X, which he deleted moments after posting. The post accused Dugan of “intentionally misdirecting” federal agents who arrived at the courthouse to detain an immigrant who was set to appear before her in an unrelated proceeding. Federal agents have been using this to charge people for nearly a century [1]. Personally I find the law itself repellent, and more often than not it is used to manufacture crimes out of thin air. But if the article is accurate, then nothing has changed - the law is simply being applied evenly, and judges are not above the law. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_false_statements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_false_statements
  • sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    The thing that has changed is that 6 months ago, directing federal agents away from an illegal immigrant couldn't be rationalized by one's oath to the Constitution committing one to a belief like "I don't think anyone should be blackbagged and sent to foreign torture prisons for the rest of their lives without due process." Sure, the law is the law, but it's certainly not true that nothing has changed.
    • Spivak 1y ago
      Or just the simple "they're appearing in my courtroom I have an exclusive lock on them until I'm done."
    • pbhjpbhj 1y ago
      Or to put it another way, if the enforcement of a law cause an action contrary to the USA Constitution then just as before a judge should block that action; previously - presumably - when applying this law it was being done constitutionally. A judge aiding unidentified assailants (not bearing any insignia of office and hiding their identity) attempting to abduct a person and send them to a death camp would be supremely objectionable in any democracy.
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
• kemayo 1y ago
  > He accused Dugan of “intentionally misdirecting” federal agents who arrived at the courthouse to detain an immigrant who was set to appear before her in an unrelated proceeding. It sounds like the arrest isn't because of any official act of the judge, but rather over them either not telling the ICE agents where the person was or giving them the wrong information about their location. There are some pretty broad laws about "you can't lie to the feds", but I think the unusual thing here is that they're using them against a reasonably politically-connected person who's not their main target. (They're normally akin to the "we got Al Capone for tax evasion" situation -- someone they were going after, where they couldn't prove the main crime, but they could prove that they lied about other details.) EDIT: since I wrote that 15 minutes ago, the article has been updated with more details about what the judge did: > ICE agents arrived in the judge’s courtroom last Friday during a pre-trial hearing for Eduardo Flores Ruiz, a 30-year-old Mexican national who is facing misdemeanor battery charges in Wisconsin. > Dugan asked the agents to leave and speak to the circuit court’s chief judge, the Journal Sentinel reported. By the time they returned, Flores Ruiz had left. I.e. the ICE agents showed up in the middle of a court proceeding, and the judge said they'd need to get permission from the chief judge before they could interrupt proceedings. The judge then didn't stop the defendant from leaving once the proceeding was done. EDIT 2: the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel article says: > Sources say Dugan didn't hide the defendant and his attorney in a jury deliberation room, as other media have said. Rather, sources said, when ICE officials left to talk with the chief judge on the same floor, Dugan took the pair to a side door in the courtroom, directed them down a private hallway and into the public area on the 6th floor. Which is an escalation above the former "didn't stop them", admittedly, but I'm not sure how it gets to "misdirection".
  • _mlbt 1y ago
    [flagged]
    • deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  • mjburgess 1y ago
    1. It isnt clear ICE agents have any legal authority to demand a judge tell them anything. 2. It is highly likely this is an official act, since it would be taken on behalf of court, so the immigrant can give, eg. testimony in a case. A "private act" here would be the judge lying in order to prevent their deportation because they as a private person wanted to do so. It seems highly unlikely that this is the case.
• Supermancho 1y ago
  AFAICT, the summary: Judge (or the courthouse in some regard) assured immigrants-of-interest^ would not be detained in courthouse, to speed up legal proceedings and to try to ensure equitable justice was being served. An immigrant was identified by ICE and the judge directed ICE somewhere and when the immigrant was not apprehended (maybe appeared in court for his 3 BATTERY misdemeanors), the FBI was called in to arrest the judge at the courthouse for obstruction. Immigrant of interest was apprehended. That sound about right? Bueller? Bueller? ^ The immigrants of interest are of varied legal status, so I'll just say "of interest".
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  • alistairSH 1y ago
    We don't know if that's correct because, unless it's surfaced in the last hour, we haven't seen anybody's account of what happened before the arrest (other than some high-level appointees tweeting).
    • alistairSH 1y ago
      Can't edit, but I've seen a few more detailed timelines that roughly correspond to the parent post. The judge didn't want ICE screwing up her courtroom (as is her right), so she declined to allow them to serve the warrant in her court. ICE went to her boss (different part of building). Meanwhile, she concluded her hearing with the immigrant in question and then sent him down a private stairway to exit the building. When ICE heard what she did, they had a warrant issued for her arrest, which was then served by the FBI. So, somebody did convince a local magistrate (not a full-blown judge) to issue that warrant. My take (IANAL)... the judge was not in the wrong for decling to serve the initial warrant. But sending the guy down a private hallway was a dumb move. Was it a federal crime? Doesn't seem like it - a slap on the wrist from her boss probably should have been sufficient. Really, just more of the Trump administration throwing their weight around and pushing the boundaries of what's acceptable in the US.
• bluGill 1y ago
  This will be interesting for the 5th amendment. They cannot arrest you for putting "drug dealer" on your tax forms as your job since you are compelled to answer that question honestly. The defendant was compelled to appear in court which means he couldn't protect his own privacy by being elsewhere - are these the same thing? I don't know how courts will see it, but it is an interesting legal question that I hope some lawyers run with.
  • zdragnar 1y ago
    They cannot use your tax forms as evidence against you, but if there is a warrant for your arrest, they can arrest you wherever they find you. If there's a warrant for my arrest on suspicion of murder and I show up to court to argue a traffic ticket, of course they'll take me in on the murder charge too.
    • nashashmi 1y ago
      Do you know if an arrest warrant was issued? I don’t think ICE works on warrants
      • prepend 1y ago
        ICE works on “administrative warrants” that are different than “judicial warrants” [0] I didn’t know the difference until today when I was reading about the case. I think the difference is the ice warrants are like detention orders and are different than a judge’s arrest warrant that grants a lot more power. [0] https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/2025/04/23/what-is-the-difference-between-ice-administrative-judicial-warrants/83219950007/ https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/2025/04/23/what-is...
      • ggreer 1y ago
        Yes, an arrest warrant was issued. From the complaint[1]: > On or about April 17, 2025, an authorized immigration official found probable cause to believe Flores-Ruiz was removable from the United States and issued a warrant for his arrest. The warrant provided, “YOU ARE COMMANDED to arrest and take into custody for removal proceedings under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the above-named alien [Flores-Ruiz identified on warrant].” Upon his arrest, Flores-Ruiz would be given a Notice of Intent/Decision to Reinstate Prior Order. He would then have an opportunity to contest the determination by making a written or oral statement to an immigration officer. He'd been deported in 2013 and snuck back in some time later. He was in Milwaukee county court that day because he'd been charged with three counts of domestic battery. 1. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wied.111629/gov.uscourts.wied.111629.1.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wied.11...
• exe34 1y ago
  [flagged]
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
• daheza 1y ago
  Since the Judiciary seem to be the only ones pushing back against the Federal overreach it makes sense to them go after them first. I don't expect Congress to start getting arrested until or if they ever do any significant pushback against Trump and his cronies. This is America now, the land of the lawless and unjust. Prepare accordingly people, if they do not like what you are doing they will use their full power to stop you.
  • frumplestlatz 1y ago
    [flagged]
    • sorcerer-mar 1y ago
      It is absolutely federal overreach to send people to foreign torture prisons (or even domestic utopian cuddle farms) without due process, full stop.
      • frumplestlatz 1y ago
        [flagged]
        • sorcerer-mar 1y ago
          It's applying reality to your abstract question. Almost no one disagrees with enforcing federal immigration law. The pushback has to do with the illegal manner in which it's happening in reality. One of the most pernicious memes among the pseudo-intellect crowd is isolating an event from its context and then saying "see, not a problem in isolation!" But these things are not happening in isolation. With high enough levels of motivated pseudo-intellectual dissection, you can portray a fatal car crash as a series of mundane procedural details and then just say "what bearing does the fatality have on it?"
          • potsandpans 1y ago
            [flagged]
• chews 1y ago
  There are two types of warrants being talked about here, traditional judge signed warrants and "administrative"/"ICE" warrants. The first one carries the ability to perform a search and possible detainment subject to the 4th amendment protections, the latter allows for discretion under the 4th amendment (this may be an viewed as an unconstitutional search) the Judge exercised their discretion with respect for constitutional rights. It's a sad day in America when people do actually enforce the rules get trapped by other rules.
  • lupusreal 1y ago
    > It's a sad day in America when people do actually enforce the rules get trapped by other rules. The people who enforce the rules being bound by the rules is precisely the way it is meant to work. Of course, it remains to be seen if any laws were actually broken.
    • rekttrader 1y ago
      You’re making the innocent till proven guilty argument, detainment somehow stands in the way of that.
• huitzitziltzin 1y ago
  This feels like a “break glass in case of emergency” kind of moment. Sure there are no details yet, but I’m trying to imagine details which would make me think “that arrest makes sense.” If I were in Milwaukee I’d be in the streets.
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  • mbrumlow 1y ago
    [flagged]
    • sixothree 1y ago
      He was literally in the courthouse. It's not like he went out the back entrance. edit: maybe he did go out of the back entrance? But the video I have seen of his arrest definitely looks like it was the inside of a courthouse.
      • mbrumlow 1y ago
        [flagged]
    • dekhn 1y ago
      Depends- if the judge directed agents from their subjects for a lawful reason, then no, there is no cause for arrest.
    • soulofmischief 1y ago
      None of this is happening in a vacuum. Our federal government is completely compromised by a violent, oligarchical ruling class, and so are many state and local governments. Elected and unelected officials are breaking law and convention left and right. Generalities help no one here but the oppressors.
    • MisterBastahrd 1y ago
      If that immigrant is there, then they're going to have to show up to the court proceedings. The time to intercept said person is directly after the hearing takes place, but these morons have no problem interrupting a hearing to take someone into custody. This is about the executive trying to walk all over the judicial branch.
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• killthegaffots 1y ago
  [dead]
• throwaway5752 1y ago
  Executive branch arrests of members of judiciary are not to be taken lightly. There are many ways to deal with these situations and this is extraordinarily far from normal. All you can do is diversify your US-based investments and get travel visas while you still can. If you are tempted to downvote, you could make a better point by finding comparable examples under any other modern president.
  • trelane 1y ago
    I used to think that about ex presidents. The times seem to have changed.
    • deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  • Der_Einzige 1y ago
    [flagged]
  • derektank 1y ago
    One need not think this is good, just, or even lawful behavior by the FBI director, nor think this is in any way comparable to the behavior of Democratic administrations, to think it's irresponsible to advise people to "get travel visas while you still can."
    • throwaway5752 1y ago
      I think it is reasonable to be prepared and have options to leave when basic civil rights and rule of law are being systematically tested and weakened on behalf of the most powerful individual in the country, who had sworn to uphold them. I would say it is irresponsible to ignore or minimize the magnitude of changes in the US in the past 100 days. I didn't say to sell all belongings and move. I said to have a way out if it becomes necessary. The FBI is being weaponized against judges, right now, and this without any modern precedent.
    • Aeolun 1y ago
• akagusu 1y ago
  [flagged]
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
• etchalon 1y ago
  [flagged]
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
• bix6 1y ago
  [flagged]
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
• hidingfearful 1y ago
  a federal agency that doesn't follow the law should lose the protection of the law. Charge the ICE agents with attempted kidnapping of the immigrant and actual kidnapping of the judge.
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  • frumplestlatz 1y ago
    [flagged]
    • kenjackson 1y ago
      I don't think citizens have a legal obligation to enforce immigration law (generally).
    • whoknowsidont 1y ago
      That statement isn't even close or applicable to any hypothetical actions the judge could have taken here. If the judge did something unlawful there are already lawful mechanisms for dealing with that and NONE of those mechanisms involve ICE detaining the judge. This is exactly what it looks like, nothing else.
      • trelane 1y ago
        > If the judge did something unlawful there are already lawful mechanisms for dealing with that and NONE of those mechanisms involve ICE detaining the judge. ICE is not detaining the judge. > But Brady McCarron, spokesman for U.S. Marshals Service in Washington, D.C., said Dugan is being charged with two federal felony counts: obstruction and concealing an individual. McCarron also confirmed Dugan was arrested at about 8 a.m. at the Milwaukee County Courthouse. > U.S. Attorney Pam Bondi posted on X: "I can confirm that our @FBI agents just arrested Hannah Dugan – a county judge in Milwaukee – for allegedly helping an illegal alien avoid an arrest by @ICEgov." Source: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/breaking/2025/04/25/milwaukee-county-judge-hannah-dugan-arrested-by-feds-at-courthouse/83270885007/ https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/breaking/2025/04/25/milw... (from below) AFAICT, this is exactly what that would look like. She's been arrested by FBI/US Marshals, and a court date for her hearing has been set.
• openasocket 1y ago
  At the moment we don't have a lot of the facts. All we seem to have at this moment is a (since deleted?) post from the head of the FBI. There's a ton of context that is missing. Like what does "intentionally misdirecting" mean? Does that mean saying "he went that way" when he really went in the opposite direction? Does it mean not answering questions about this person, or being obtuse? I'd also like to know more of the circumstances here. Did ICE agents literally walk into court and question the judge while sitting on the bench?
  • kemayo 1y ago
    Article has been updated with more context in recent minutes: > ICE agents arrived in the judge’s courtroom last Friday during a pre-trial hearing for Eduardo Flores Ruiz, a 30-year-old Mexican national who is facing misdemeanor battery charges in Wisconsin. > Dugan asked the agents to leave and speak to the circuit court’s chief judge, the Journal Sentinel reported. By the time they returned, Flores Ruiz had left. So, yeah, sounds like they literally walked into court and interrupted a hearing. Given the average temperament of judges, I think the least immigrant-friendly ones out there would become obstructionists in that situation...
    • dmix 1y ago
      That still sounds pretty vague.
    • sixothree 1y ago
      Are these the agents that were recorded last week not wearing uniforms and not presenting identification?
    • NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
      Or they walked into the hearing, sat in the back, and didn't interrupt it. These proceedings are almost always public, and theoretically you or I could walk in and sit quietly without violating any rules. Without knowing more, they could have just been waiting patiently for the hearing to end, and they would have arrested him outside the courtroom after he had left. In that case, what the judge did does amount to willful obstruction.
• anonym29 1y ago
  Would it not be better to have a peaceful, civil, lawful, separation of the two different Americas than for us to rigidly cling to an idea of a "United" States that no longer represents reality? We're clearly living in two different realities already, brought about the partisan media (on both sides) willfully and deliberately misrepresenting reality to serve the interests of their shadowy trillion-dollar corporate conglomerates, amplified by the digital echo chambers brought about other secretive, manipulative trillion-dollar corporate conglomerates. Is it seriously better to let the entire federal government collapse, leaving a power void in it's wake, than to have two Americas with freedom of movement, free trade, etc?
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  • JKCalhoun 1y ago
    Maybe you're a fan of "Texit".
    • anonym29 1y ago
      Good guess. I'm big on "marketplace of ideas", where each state has far greater control of public policy (which is overwhelmingly federalized right now). If California wants to show the world how good single-payer healthcare and UBI could be, let them. If New York wants to disarm every resident and send police around to confiscate firearms, let them. If Texas wants to ban abortion within the state for residents, let them. Let each state have an opportunity to show the world how good or bad their policy positions are. Diversity of policy + freedom of choice. My big caveats would be freedom of movement, no criminalizing activity that occurs out of state, free trade, freedom of association (no Alabama, you cannot criminalize trade with Massachusets), etc. If you don't like California, you should be free to leave California (without fear of California retroactively increasing punitive tax enforcement against you), and if you don't like Texas, you should be free to leave Texas (even if just to get an abortion in another state and then come back, without fear of arrest or imprisonment). We are not one identical set of people with one identical culture, one identical set of values, one identical sense of right and wrong. We're 330,000,000+ unique individuals who cluster together, mainly around people like us. Good gun laws for rural Montana are not necessarily good gun laws for New York City. We should stop pretending that the people in DC always know best for everyone, everywhere. Local communities know what is best for themselves. The more decentralized, the better.
• jwsteigerwalt 1y ago
  Still waiting for better information about whether the judge was uncooperative or lied/misled the agents.
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  • KittenInABox 1y ago
    This is immensely frustrating as someone who also genuinely cares about justice being done and the rule of law being followed. I want arrests to be made when there's reasonable information that this judge lied to federal agents, but frankly I can't see the federal government taking appropriate care to ensure they aren't arresting arbitrarily and then dodging accountability for trying to make right their wrongs. The federal government can claim anyone has done a crime and arrest them, but then if they ruin a person's life over this claim what is the arrestee's recourse for justice? It just seems so in violation of my desire to wait for proof in court: what do we do when the proof is wrong-- how do we make right as a people? This persons was arrested at their workplace publicly and lost their freedoms for however long it takes to sort it out in a court of law. In the meantime the prosecutors who are taking away those freedoms sacrifice nothing while they, too, wait to prove their case in court.
    • lupusreal 1y ago
      The government probably has evidence, maybe or maybe not persuasive enough for a conviction. That evidence will be presented in due course, not all up front to the media.
      • whats_a_quasar 1y ago
        Given the circumstances, the government absolutely does have an obligation to present its evidence up front. You cannot use federal agents to arrest officers of a state government unless the charges are rock solid. There is a strong public interest in this case and the current administration has shown that it is owed zero deference or presumption that it is acting in good faith.
• bonif 1y ago
  It’s heartbreaking to see the United States, once a symbol of strength and freedom, reduced to a complete joke.
  • CamperBob2 1y ago
    Well, you see, some dogs and cats were being eaten, and the other lady cackled too much, so it was inevitable, really.
    • staplers 1y ago
      It's worse actually. People lived through 2020 and wanted to do it again..
      • footlose_3815 1y ago
        Yeah, those 19 people's investments are doing great.
    • cosmicgadget 1y ago
      And don't forget the price of eggs which somehow is unrelated to the fiscal and monetary policies started in 2020.
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  • trelane 1y ago
    This is not a new development. We'be been laughed at for as long as I can remember.
  • Aeolun 1y ago
    I mean, it did always seem pretty close to the surface. Like the US was one misstep away from this happening. The balance of power in a two party system seems almost comically skewed.
• jaco6 1y ago
  Why are the people of Wisconsin taking this without a fight? Sit ins in local FBI branch offices and police stations are in order. Groups of protestors stand in front of police car parking lots—if the piggies can’t leave their sty, they can’t destroy our democracy.
  • readhistory 1y ago
    [flagged]
  • jibal 1y ago
    What makes you think people aren't doing that? They are. You're wrong about that last bit, though.
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• tptacek 1y ago
  This happened in the last Trump administration, too.
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  • pvg 1y ago
    I don't think they started with an arrest then, right?
    • tptacek 1y ago
      No, they started with a felony indictment. They later dropped the charges, and she got misconduct charges from the MA Commission on Judicial Conduct.
  • whats_a_quasar 1y ago
    Source?
    • perihelions 1y ago
      There's a parallel comment subthread about that, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43794576#43795264 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43794576#43795264 ("In April [2019], [Shelley Joseph] and a court officer, Wesley MacGregor, were accused of allowing an immigrant to evade detention by arranging for him to sneak out the back door of a courthouse. The federal prosecutor in Boston took the highly unusual step of charging the judge with obstruction of justice…")
      • chimeracoder 1y ago
        AFAIK Selley Joseph was charged, but she was not arrested. Arresting a judge in this sort of scenario is essentially unprecedented.
  • lobotomizer 1y ago
    [flagged]
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
• esbranson 1y ago
  Intentionally misdirecting a federal investigation is a crime.[1][2] Pretty straightforward accusation. "Our legal system provides methods for challenging the Government's right to ask questions—lying is not one of them." — Justice Harlan [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_false_statements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_false_statements [2] https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-916-false-statements-federal-investigator https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual...
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  • jmull 1y ago
    What does this have to do with this situation though?
  • crooked-v 1y ago
    There was no "misdirecting" here. The judge truthfully told the agents they wouldn't be allowed to detain someone in the middle of a hearing without exceptional permission, at which point they all left, apparently didn't even bother to watch the courthouse doors, and upon their return had the judge arrested for not detaining a man it wasn't her job or legal authority to detain.
    • esbranson 1y ago
      Per the criminal complaint, despite a federal warrant for Flores-Ruiz's arrest, Judge Dugan escorted Flores-Ruiz through a non-public jury door to escape arrest.
      • crooked-v 1y ago
        She had no legal obligation to hold the man or have him exit in a particular way. The agents on the scene clearly agreed, or they wouldn't have left!
  • esbranson 1y ago
• djoldman 1y ago
  The arrest itself (not necessarily the charges) is best described as a publicity stunt. If you want to charge a lawyer or judge or anyone unlikely to run of a non-violent crime, you invite them to the station: > “First and foremost, I know -- as a former federal prosecutor and as a defense lawyer for decades – that a person who is a judge, who has a residence who has no problem being found, should not be arrested, if you will, like some common criminal,” Gimbel said. “And I'm shocked and surprised that the US Attorney's office or the FBI would not have invited her to show up and accept process if they're going to charge her with a crime.” > He said that typically someone who is “not on the run,” and facing this type of crime would be called and invited to come in to have their fingerprints taken or to schedule a court appearance.
  • giraffe_lady 1y ago
    Public displays of executive power and disregard for political and legal norms is slightly more than a publicity stunt. They are related ideas but come on. Like describing a cross burning as a publicity stunt. This is a threat.
  • whats_a_quasar 1y ago
    No, a "publicity stunt" is not the best way to describe this latest escalation in the Trump administration's campaign to destroy the rule of law in America. It may be deliberately flashy, but that phrasing very much undersells the significance of the executive attacking the judiciary.
  • jandrese 1y ago
    Can you imagine being a law enforcement officer bringing a case before a judge that you previously arrested on a flimsy pretext in order to intimidate them? That's going to be awkward.
    • kasey_junk 1y ago
      Federal agents probably don’t worry too much about being in local misdemeanor court.
  • 1y ago
• bjornsing 1y ago
  [flagged]
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
• DrillShopper 1y ago
  If you're as incensed about this as I am, you can call the Milwaukee County Republican Party HQ at 414-897-7202 and let them know what you think. They're inclusive and open to dialog per their page at https://www.mkegop.com/ https://www.mkegop.com/, so I'm sure they'd love to hear from you.
  • ericras 1y ago
    [flagged]
    • kashunstva 1y ago
      > liberals elsewhere Have you considered the possibility that the objections here may be more related to an apparent attack on the judicial branch rather than the desire to protect a person residing illegally in the United States?
• gsibble 1y ago
  [flagged]
  • Aeolun 1y ago
    This thread is especially bad though. So much flagged and dead. I feel like some true extremists descended on this one, writing both inflammatory messages as well as flagging everything they don’t like.
    • gsibble 1y ago
      Every time I've written something that goes against the liberal narrative that makes the front page on HN, it's flagged in under 5 minutes. Even when it's about tech or San Francisco.
      • Aeolun 1y ago
        That happens in reverse too though? I see lots of liberal comments flagged that are perfectly reasonable (if not necessarily productive)
• bix6 1y ago
  Milwaukee journal is providing great coverage: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/breaking/2025/04/25/milwaukee-county-judge-hannah-dugan-arrested-by-feds-at-courthouse/83270885007/ https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/breaking/2025/04/25/milw...
  • legitster 1y ago
    A good reminder that we need to support local, professional journalism. Otherwise the only information we would be getting right now is official statements or hearsay.
    • DrillShopper 1y ago
      The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel now is just a reskin of USA Today[1]. They're not locally owned or controlled. [1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pr/2016/04/11/gannett-completes-acquisition-journal-media-group/82887440/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pr/2016/04/11/gannett-co...
      • legitster 1y ago
        The important thing is they are still paying for a journalism to do beat coverage in the area. Everyone acts like independence is the most important aspect of journalism. But an independent blogger in New York rewording press releases is exactly how we got in this misinformation mess, and absolutely not a replacement for someone with a recorder walking around a courthouse asking questions.
    • deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  • rahimnathwani 1y ago
    The AP article someone else linked is much better: it includes both: - a PDF of the criminal complaint (court filing), and - details of what specifically the complaint alleges (that the judge encouraged the person to escape out of a 'jury door' to evade arrest). The phrase 'jury door' doesn't appear in the JS article.
• esbranson 1y ago
  Ok looks like the PACER documents dropped. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69943125/united-states-v-dugan/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69943125/united-states-...
  • esbranson 1y ago
    [flagged]
    • deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  • martinjacobd 1y ago
    If this complaint is true (my understanding is a complaint is always only one side of the story and the evidence presented may not end up being admissible, obviously IANAL and so forth), then seems quite similar to the MA case from several years ago: https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2024/12/04/judge-shelley-joseph-accused-misconduct-allegedly-allowing-suspect-escape-ice-agents/ https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2024/12/04/judge-shel...
    • esbranson 1y ago
      Yes it would appear so.[1] It's a federal felony complaint so I believe it has to go to a grand jury next. [1] https://www.mass.gov/news/commission-on-judicial-conduct-files-formal-charges-against-judge-shelley-m-richmond-joseph https://www.mass.gov/news/commission-on-judicial-conduct-fil...
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
• crote 1y ago
  I'm not very familiar with US laws, but why wouldn't the FBI agents likewise be arrested for interfering with the judge's court case? Let's say I murder someone. I definitely did it, and there's plenty of evidence. What's stopping my hypothetical ICE buddy from showing up at my first court appearance, arresting me, and deporting me to a country without extradition by claiming that I am an "illegal immigrant"?
  • dylan604 1y ago
    FBI != ICE. It was ICE that showed up to the courtroom. The FBI was only involved in the arrest after ICE was butt hurt and complained to daddy about the situation. ICE does not have authority to arrest citizens. That is why the FBI was involved to be able to make the arrest of a citizen
    • crote 1y ago
      Ah, sorry, missed that detail. I should've said "why wouldn't the ICE agents likewise be arrested" > ICE does not have authority to arrest citizens ICE has the authority to arrest and deport illegal immigrants, does it not? That's why they were at the courtroom in the first place. If said citizen has zero interest in disproving ICE's belief that they aren't an illegal immigrant, who's going to stop ICE from arresting them?
      • dylan604 1y ago
        If you're a citizen and get rounded up by ICE, you'd be a complete moron to not be protesting your citizenship and offering up proof of it. Whether they believe you or not is up to them, but I've never heard of a citizen that just went along with the deportation and never objecting about being a citizen. Where do you even come up with this idea on zero interest in disproving ICE? Hell even Cheech & Chong have a bit/song about this "I was born in East LA".
  • Y_Y 1y ago
    Is this qhy everyone is worried about illegal immigrants comitting crimes? Because they have a get-out-of-jail-free?
• empath75 1y ago
  This is part of a broader pattern of the incompetent thugs at ICE taking advantage of other, actual functioning and useful parts of government to help them do their work for them. It's not just courts, it's citizenship hearings, it's the IRS, it's schools. They're trying to send a message not to push back or get in their way. It's not about this particular judge, they are sending a message that they will go after school teachers or anybody else.
  • xpe 1y ago
    Generally, I share these concerns. At the same time, this story is very new. In any case, looking at the primary sources is important. See https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69943125/united-states-v-dugan/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69943125/united-states-.... I'm not a lawyer, but the criminal complaint does appear to be, more or less, within the realm of normal. Now, putting aside that complaint, the decision to arrest Dugan is questionable for sure. My current understanding is that such an arrest is only done if the suspect is a flight risk. It is probably wise to give this at least a few hours of detailed analysis by legal experts before we jump to conclusions or paint it with a broad brush.
    • jibal 1y ago
      Criminal complaints against sitting judges for actions they took in their courtroom are not at all "normal".
      • xpe 1y ago
        >> I'm not a lawyer, but the criminal complaint does appear to be, more or less, within the realm of normal. > Criminal complaints against sitting judges for actions they took in their courtroom are not at all "normal". Point taken. Just so that we're not talking past each other: What I was trying to say is this: as I read the language in the document, it sounded like plausible legal text. I'm not suggesting this is the proper bar. I am saying that I've read other official "legal" documents from the Trump administration that don't even meet the "not batshit crazy" bar.
    • 1y ago
• nis0s 1y ago
  America is quickly devolving into a lawless, third-world country. Based on the news reported thus far, it seems the judge was arrested because some egos got hurt. Usually when third world country leadership starts acting capricious, there is either a coup or a civil war, neither of which makes sense for a developed, first-world democracy. The Republicans are right that the lawlessness around the border needs to be controlled, but this is not the way to do it. If I recall correctly, Biden deported millions of illegal immigrants during his term. Whatever is going on right now isn’t security, but a farce.
  • jaco6 1y ago
    [dead]
• tlogan 1y ago
  Now think about the other way: what if this judge is super right wing? I’m getting concerned that our judicial branch is becoming more and more political. And believe me there are many right wing judges.
• jawiggins 1y ago
  The AP article [1] has the full complaint linked, the crux of the case seems to be around the judge allowing the defendant to leave through a back entrance ("jury door") when they were aware agents were waiting in the public hallway to make an arrest as they exited. " 29. Multiple witnesses have described their observations after Judge DUGAN returned to her courtroom after directing members of the arrest team to the Chief Judge’s office. For example, the courtroom deputy recalled that upon the courtroom deputy’s return to the courtroom,defense counsel for Flores-Ruiz was talking to the clerk, and Flores-Ruiz was seated in the jury box, rather than in the gallery. The courtroom deputy believed that counsel and the clerk were having an off-the-record conversation to pick the next court date. Defense counsel and Flores-Ruizthen walked toward each other and toward the public courtroom exit. The courtroom deputy then saw Judge DUGAN get up and heard Judge DUGAN say something like “Wait, come with me.” Despite having been advised of the administrative warrant for the arrest of Flores-Ruiz, Judge DUGAN then escorted Flores-Ruiz and his counsel out of the courtroom through the “jury door,” which leads to a nonpublic area of the courthouse. These events were also unusual for two reasons.First, the courtroom deputy had previously heard Judge DUGAN direct people not to sit in the jury box because it was exclusively for the jury’s use. Second, according to the courtroom deputy, only deputies, juries, court staff, and in-custody defendants being escorted by deputies used the back jury door. Defense attorneys and defendants who were not in custody never used the jury door." [1]: https://apnews.com/article/immigration-judge-arrested-7997186bbca5730e70a25f2347e631f6 https://apnews.com/article/immigration-judge-arrested-799718...
  • euroderf 1y ago
    There has to be precedents in case law for how to assess this.
    • trollied 1y ago
      You might want to read this https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/sanctuary--supremacy--history--and-the-deep-country https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/sanctuary--supremacy--h...
  • crooked-v 1y ago
• bradley13 1y ago
  [flagged]
  • tmpz22 1y ago
    If the facts come out that the charge is flimsy or legally unsound AND protocol and precedent was breached, such as it being very atypical to haul a nonviolent offender (the judge) from a courthouse, would you change your mind? Will you follow up on the facts of this case or do you already know everything you need to know?
    • bradley13 1y ago
      She sent the agents out of the hearing, where they waited for the guy to come out. After the hearing, she told him to leave via the jury door, to avoid the agents. Pretty clear cut. What about you? Given the facts, will you defend her?
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
• kcatskcolbdi 1y ago
  This seems bad in a sea of events that seem bad. I have no deep admiration for judges, but the motivation for this seems deeply ideological, and I don't see a bright future where judges are arrested by the Gestapo based on ideological differences.
  • macinjosh 1y ago
    A judge literally helped a suspect hide from federal law enforcement. How can you be serious? Judges are supposed to up hold the law not find loopholes for people they like.
    • cosmicgadget 1y ago
      Maybe she was unenthusiastic about the idea of the courthouse turning into an immigration checkpoint? Kind of rich to be wagging your finger at a judge subverting the law considering what the counterparty has been doing.
• xpe 1y ago
  If you want a primary source, I recommend reading https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wied.111629/gov.uscourts.wied.111629.1.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wied.11... In particular, part D: "Judge DUGAN escorts Flores-Ruiz through a “jury door” to avoid his arrest."
  • slaw 1y ago
    I hope Judge Dugan will be trialed as a regular citizen.
    • int_19h 1y ago
      I hope the jury will nullify. It does indeed look like she broke the law, but it was the right thing to do.
  • Aeolun 1y ago
    Not necessarily to avoid his arrest, only the fact they went through a jury door is indicated for now.
    • dionian 1y ago
      It would be interesting to hear if there was another valid reason for this
      • Miner49er 1y ago
        There doesn't have to be, it's up to the prosecution to prove the reason was to aid him in avoiding arrest. The judge doesn't have to provide an alternate reason.
        • foldr 1y ago
          I’m not trying to defend this arrest, but that’s not really how it works. If there’s an obvious illegal motivation for doing X and the person who did X can’t supply a plausible alternative explanation, then a jury may conclude that X was done with the illegal motivation. Say that I take an item from a store. That’s only a crime if I did it with the intent of stealing it. But the prosecution doesn’t really have to “prove” in any practical sense that I had that intention. If I don’t have a plausible story about why else I did it, then I’ll probably be found guilty.
• josefritzishere 1y ago
  This is feeling increasingly like Germany circa 1936.
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
• indiansdontwipe 1y ago
  [dead]
• nonethewiser 1y ago
  This would be pretty sad if she did help him evade ICE. He was in court for battery charges and in the country illegally. ICE arresting him does not interfere with any due process. Which he 100% needs to get (but arresting him is still part of that). What is left here thats worth protecting? Not someone we want in the country and the agents had a warrant for his arrest (court comes after that). I feel like this is a serious own-goal by the people opposing this. Read the complaint corroborated by witnesses - she clearly did help him evade arrest: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wied.111629/gov.uscourts.wied.111629.1.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wied.11...
  • sarlalian 1y ago
    There is nothing in any of the articles indicating he was here illegally. He's referred to in all the articles I've read as an immigrant. Not as illegal or undocumented. It's also reasonable to point out that removing someones legal immigration status, due to being "charged" with a crime, is a seriously slippery slope.
    • nonethewiser 1y ago
      >He's referred to in all the articles I've read as an immigrant. Well that just say everything about the articles you've been reading, doesnt it? >Agents from the United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal Operations (“ICE ERO”) identified Flores-Ruiz as an individual who was not lawfully in the United States. A review of Flores-Ruiz’s Alien Registration File (“A-File”) indicated that Flores-Ruiz is a native and citizen of Mexico and that Flores-Ruiz had been issued an I-860 Notice and Order of Expedited Removal by United States Border Patrol Agents on January 16, 2013, and that Flores-Ruiz was thereafter removed to Mexico through the Nogales, Arizona, Port of Entry. There is no evidence in the AFile or DHS indices indicating that Flores-Ruiz sought or obtained permission to return to the United States https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wied.111629/gov.uscourts.wied.111629.1.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wied.11... I fully support him getting due process. But arresting him is part of that. >It's also reasonable to point out that removing someones legal immigration status Where did that happen?
• kstrauser 1y ago
  Part of the reason why I support "sanctuary cities" is that it's better for everyone if undocumented immigrants feel safe talking to the police. Imagine someone broke into my car and there was a witness who saw the whole thing. I want them to be OK telling the cops what happened. I want them to be OK reporting crimes in their neighborhood. I want them to be OK testifying about it in court. I want them to be OK calling 911. Even if I put all human rights issues aside, I don't want anyone to be punished for talking to the police simply because of their immigration status, because their freedom to do so makes my own daily life safer. Well, that goes double for courtrooms. If some guy's due to testify in a murder case, I don't want him skipping court because some quota-making jackass at ICE wants to arrest him because of a visa issue. In this case, the person was actually in court to face misdemeanor charges (of which they haven't been convicted yet, i.e. they're still legally innocent). I want people to go to court to face trial instead of skipping out because they fear they'll be arrested and deported for unrelated reasons. I bet the judge has pretty strong opinions on that exact issue, too.
  • thuanao 1y ago
    I want "sanctuary cities" because the whole idea of "illegal" people is tyrannical and inhumane.
  • Gabriel54 1y ago
    What is the purpose of laws if they are willfully ignored? Where do you draw the line? If the police don't care about someone's immigration status, why should they care about who broke into your car?
    • dbspin 1y ago
      The line is prosecution policy. There are thousands of laws on the books that are never enforced, particularly in the United States. Given the inhuman and grossly illegal deportation without due process of thousands of people by the Trump administration - to an extrajudicial torture prison no less - many means of resisting the kidnap of people (citizens or non) are reasonable).
• EnPissant 1y ago
  Sequence of events according to the criminal complaint[1]: 1. ICE obtained and brought an administrative immigration warrant to arrest Flores-Ruiz after his 8:30 a.m. state-court hearing in Courtroom 615 (Judge Dugan’s court). 2. Agents informed the courtroom deputy of their plan and waited in the public hallway. A public-defender attorney photographed them and alerted Judge Dugan. 3. Judge Dugan left the bench, confronted the agents in the hallway, angrily insisted they needed a judicial warrant, and ordered them to see the Chief Judge. Judge A (another judge) escorted most of the team away. One DEA agent remained unnoticed. 4. Returning to her courtroom, Judge Dugan placed Flores-Ruiz in the jury box, then personally escorted him and his attorney through the locked jury-door into non-public corridors: an exit normally used only for in-custody defendants escorted by deputies. 5. The prosecutor (ADA) handling the case was present, as were the victims of the domestic violence charges. However, the case was never called on the record, and the ADA was never informed of the adjournment. 6. Flores-Ruiz and counsel used a distant elevator, exited on 9th Street, and walked toward the front plaza. Agents who had just left the Chief Judge’s office spotted them. When approached, Flores-Ruiz sprinted away. 7. After a brief foot chase along State Street, agents arrested Flores-Ruiz at 9:05 a.m., about 22 minutes after first seeing him inside. [1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69943125/united-states-v-dugan/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69943125/united-states-...
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• cactacea 1y ago
  ICE has absolutely no business in state courthouses. The federal interest in enforcing immigration law should not be placed above the state's interest in enforcing equal protection under the law. Consider the case of a undocumented rape victim. Do they not deserve justice? Are we better off letting a rapist go free when their victim cannot testify against them because they were deported? I think not and I do not want to live in that society.
  • kstrauser 1y ago
    Nailed it. Keep that stuff away from: * Police interactions, unless you want people refusing to cooperate with police. * Hospitals, unless you want people refusing to seek medical care for communicable diseases. * Courtrooms, unless you want people to skip court or refuse to testify as witnesses. My wife likes watching murder investigation TV shows. Sometimes the homicide detectives will talk to petty criminals like street-level drug dealers, prostitutes, and the like. The first thing the detectives do is assure them that they're there about a murder and couldn't care less about the other minor stuff. They're not going to arrest some guy selling weed when they want to hear his story about something he witnessed. Well, same thing here but on a bigger stage.
    • morkalork 1y ago
      Except that's TV and police often nail petty criminals for petty crimes in the process of larger investigations and they wonder why they get so little public support and cooperation.
    • FreebasingLLMs 1y ago
      [dead]
  • thrance 1y ago
    A sane argument against an insane position. Republicans are perfectly fine with unpunished violence against non-citizens. No wonder tourism is sharply declining.
  • lliamander 1y ago
• Gabriel54 1y ago
  People are arrested in court every day. Why a judge would risk their career to prevent ICE from executing a warrant for someone's arrest confounds me.
  • thrance 1y ago
    You're right, she should have let ICE illegally send the guy straight to an El Salvador dark site with no due process.
  • mempko 1y ago
    Because the judge appears to have basic morals
  • cosmicgadget 1y ago
    Her career might get more difficult if witnesses stop showing up to court because they fear deportation that skips due process.
• exiguus 1y ago
  How often does it happen in the us that a judge get arrested?
  • disqard 1y ago
    Multiple people in this thread are painfully obviously trying to look the other way, marshaling all their logic for this purpose, yet you waltz in here and say the quiet part out loud. Tsk tsk!
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
• mempko 1y ago
  [flagged]
  • throwawa14223 1y ago
    How so?
    • renewedrebecca 1y ago
      [flagged]
      • bufferoverflow 1y ago
        [flagged]
        • sixothree 1y ago
          Do you really believe what you said is acceptable in any way?
          • bufferoverflow 1y ago
            [flagged]
            • sixothree 1y ago
              [flagged]
              • tomhow 1y ago
                No personal attacks please, no matter how wrong someone is or you feel they are. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        • tomhow 1y ago
          Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Eschew flamebait. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
• robblbobbl 1y ago
  Concerning
• mmooss 1y ago
  The issue here is not the facts of this incident. The issue is an attempted expansion of power and reduction in the liberty to dissent. The Trump administration have been talking for weeks, maybe months, of finding ways for US attorneys to prosecute local officials who do not support Trump's immigration policy. Note that they also are threatening punishment through budget and policy. Also, realize that immigration is just the first step: * It's the first step in legitimizing mass prejudice - including stereotypes, in this case of non-wealthy immigrants - and hatred, and legitimizing that as a basis for denying people their humanity, dignity, and rights. * It's a first step to legitimizing government terror as a policy tool. * It's a first step in expanding the executive branch's power - I suspect chosen because the executive branch already has a lot of power in that domain. Note their claim to deny any check on their power by Congress (through the laws, which are made by Congress, and funding, which is appropriated by Congress) and the courts. * It's a first step to expanding federal power vis-a-vis the states. The next steps will be to use those now-legitimate tools on other groups, other forms of power, etc. Part of the way it works is corruption: people make an exception or support it because it's following the herd, because opposing it is harder and sometimes scary, because they don't like this particular group and it seems legitimate in some way .... Then when they turn these weapons on you, what standing do you have to disagree? I think in particular of politically vulnerable communities who are going along with these things or saying, 'not our problem' - you're next. That's where "First they came for the socialists ..." etc. comes from. (And you'll note that, not coincidentally, they are also coming for some socialists now and laying the groundwork for more, but most people don't like the socialists anyway so that's fine!)
  • slaw 1y ago
    No, the issue is: "Judge DUGAN escorts Flores-Ruiz through a “jury door” to avoid his arrest." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wied.111629/gov.uscourts.wied.111629.1.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wied.11...
    • insane_dreamer 1y ago
      except that they didn't have valid warrant for his arrest, so no.
• Animats 1y ago
  A key point here, which the judge brought up with the ICE agents, is that they only had an "administrative warrant".[1] An “ICE warrant” is not a real warrant. It is not reviewed by a judge or any neutral party to determine if it is based on probable cause. "An immigration officer from ICE or CBP may not enter any nonpublic areas—or areas that are not freely accessible to the public and hence carry a higher expectation of privacy—without a valid judicial warrant or consent to enter."[2] The big distinction is that an administrative warrant does not authorize a search. [1] https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/know-your-rights/know-your-rights-immigration-enforcement-and-warrants https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/know-your-rights/know-your-r... [2] https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/2025-Subpoenas-Warrants_.pdf https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/2025-Subpoen...
  • nonethewiser 1y ago
    That is key indeed. She specifically clarified the type of warrant then escorted Ruiz out a path that she knew they could not legally be in.
  • Gabriel54 1y ago
    There is no suggestion that the agents conducted a search or entered a non-public area. And this has nothing to do with the claim that the judge actively obstructed their efforts.
    • deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    • ajross 1y ago
      It can't very well be "obstruction" if they aren't empowered to do the search in the first place, can it? No, this is a disaster. Hyperbole aside, this is indeed how democracy dies. Eventually this escalates to arresting more senior political enemies. And eventually the arbiter of whoever has the power to make and enforce those arrests ends up resting not with the elected government but in the law enforcement and military apparatus with the physical power to do so. Once your regime is based on the use of force, you end up beholden to the users of force. Every time. We used to be special. We aren't now.
• death2treason 1y ago
  [flagged]
• seivan 1y ago
  [dead]
• seivan 1y ago
  [dead]
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• chmorgan_ 1y ago
  The irony that the judge would likely have held you in contempt if you didn't obey one of their orders but seems to think it's ok to help people pursued by other law enforcement to skip out. The judge should know that even they aren't above the law and they can't override other judicial and administrative rulings just because they disagree with them.
  • exegete 1y ago
    What judge gave ICE the warrant?
  • cosmicgadget 1y ago
    > they disagree with them All I see on the rationale is: > if any attorney or other court official “knows or believes that a person feels unsafe coming to the courthouse to courtroom 615,” they should notify the clerk and request an appearance via Zoom. Did I miss an alternative explanation from the judge?
• neilpointer 1y ago
  I think the judge understands the law more deeply than ICE agents. Very unlikely that the judge will be found guilty of the crime charged by FBI, but that's not the point. The point is for Trump and his cronies to scare the judiciary into submission.
• macinjosh 1y ago
  [flagged]
  • neilpointer 1y ago
    I think it's because our legal system is predicated on "innocent until proven guilty" for really, really good reasons. One such reason is assuming people should not be protected by the law without proving allegations against them in a court.
    • thowawy9292 1y ago
      [dead]
  • scottyg66 1y ago
    How did you know he was an illegal alien if he fled the scene and wasn't caught?
    • macinjosh 1y ago
      I never said he was not caught. He also left identifying information in his vehicle and had a warrant out for his arrest already. He got in fight in jail and died before he even got close to facing justice.
    • Clubber 1y ago
      Because they caught him later? There are cameras everywhere these days.
  • chimeracoder 1y ago
    > Why are some people so obsessed with protecting people with no regard for our laws This is a wild statement for someone to write in defense of people who just broke the law while arresting a federal judge who was herself attempting to enforce the law.
    • thowawy9292 1y ago
• ConspiracyFact 1y ago
  I just read the complaint. What’s the problem? Was the administrative warrant invalid? According to the complaint, the agents didn’t enter the courtroom, but rather waited in the hall, where they were approached by the judge. If the judge directed the defendant to a back door never used by defendants not in custody, that’s clearly obstruction.
  • maximinus_thrax 1y ago
    I'm fairly certain that a sitting judge who's a former president of the bar association knows the law better than you or me or Crack Patel and is more aware of the legal ramifications than random armchair lawyers. From my personal armchair, this will go nowhere, the accusation has no basis. Something similar happened before and the charges were dropped. This was just an attempt to intimidate the judiciary. I hope the SCOTUS is happy with the monster they created.
    • Slava_Propanei 1y ago
      [dead]
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• cmurf 1y ago
  The President of the United States of America is at war with the Constitution and the rule of law. - J. Michael Luttig, former Fourth Circuit judge, April 14, 2025. https://abovethelaw.com/2025/04/conservative-judge-doesnt-pull-punches/ https://abovethelaw.com/2025/04/conservative-judge-doesnt-pu... --- This — the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s arrest today of a sitting judge — against the backdrop that the President of the United States is, at this same moment, defying an April 10 Order of the Supreme Court of the United States ... - April 25, 2025 (thread continues) https://bsky.app/profile/judgeluttig.bsky.social/post/3lnnzbtnuds2a https://bsky.app/profile/judgeluttig.bsky.social/post/3lnnzb... --- To read the Criminal Complaint and attached FBI Affidavit that gave rise to Wisconsin State Judge Hannah Dugan’s federal criminal arrest today for obstructing or impeding a proceeding before a department or agency of the United States and concealing an individual to prevent his discovery and arrest is at once to know to a certainty that neither the state courts nor the federal courts could ever even hope to administer justice if the spectacle that took place in Judge Dugan’s courthouse last Friday April 18 took place in the courthouses across the country. - April 25, 2025 (thread continues) https://bsky.app/profile/judgeluttig.bsky.social/post/3lnnxqudeyc2w https://bsky.app/profile/judgeluttig.bsky.social/post/3lnnxq... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Michael_Luttig https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Michael_Luttig
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• guywithahat 1y ago
  Lying to cops (and FBI) is a crime. This judge knew it was illegal but did it anyways to let criminals get away. This isn't controversial.
• _DeadFred_ 1y ago
  If they are arresting judges for any appearance of helping immigrants, imagine all the arrests ICE is making of employers of undocumented immigrants right now.
• firesteelrain 1y ago
  Based on the alleged facts, the Judge is guilty of obstruction not harboring. I don’t know why he would hide an illegal from ICE. Especially someone breaking the law which a judge is sworn to uphold.
  • lantry 1y ago
    "the law, which a judge is sworn to uphold" includes due process. The president and everyone in the executive branch has also sworn to uphold this.
    • firesteelrain 1y ago
      Illegal immigrant gets due process when they go in front of an immigration judge. This particular judge doesn’t get to pick and choose who gets due process (nor hide illegal immigrants / criminals from ICE)
      • int_19h 1y ago
        Immigration "courts" (which are administrative, so basically sham) make a mockery of due process. These are literally places where they put 3 year olds on trial without legal representation.
        • firesteelrain 1y ago
          That’s sad. Why did their parents send them across the border with mules?
• Sammi 1y ago
  If I was a judge in the US right now then I would feel very strongly that there is a metaphorical bus I need to go sit in right now.
• TrapLord_Rhodo 1y ago
  ICE is there to arrest a known fugative. The judge said you don't have the right to stop proceedings. They back down and say we'll just arrest him afterwards. >[Afterwards] Dugan took the pair to a side door in the courtroom, directed them down a private hallway and into the public area on the 6th floor. Seems like “intentionally misdirecting” federal agents to me.
• phendrenad2 1y ago
  There's now been more information in this case. Apparently the judge smuggled the defendant out of the court through a back door in her chambers. I don't know why that information wasn't provided initially, and it's kind of annoying, because all of the other comments here are moot.
• Slava_Propanei 1y ago
  [dead]
• hn_acker 1y ago
  Here is a useful explanation of the legal situation [1] with the caveat that the facts of the case haven't been confirmed yet. [1] The Judge Dugan Case Is More Complicated Than It Seems - https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-judge-dugan-case-is-more-complicated-than-it-seems https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-judge-dugan-case-is...