7 ms·
> 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 un
by 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 ago1. 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.
- kemayo 1y agoI updated my post with new information from the updated article, and in the context of that I think you're pretty much right. It sounds like the judge basically said "you need permission to arrest someone in the middle of my hearing, go get it" and then didn't change anything about the process of their hearing while that permission was being obtained. This was definitely not them being helpful, but I'm incredibly doubtful that they could be successfully prosecuted for this.
- willis936 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- BizarroLand 1y agoFor people who don't live in crazy town, this would be considered an oppressive action, arresting a judge for following procedure simply because it inconvenienced you.
- ConspiracyFact 1y agoThe judge wasn’t arrested for following procedure. Read the complaint.
- bix6 1y agoConsidering the ongoing due process deprivations this is the most concerning aspect to me. This is a sitting judge which is a significant escalation against the judiciary.
- phendrenad2 1y agoSounds like some lower-level ICE agents screwed up, and let the subject get away, and they're trying to redirect blame to the judge. I doubt this will stick, barring any new info on what happened.
- euroderf 1y agoGoing from "redirect blame" to "make an arrest" is a significant escalation.
- ceejayoz 1y agoThat's the main tactic this administration uses, isn't it? Double down, never admit fault, get into a giant trade war with the rest of the world...
- phendrenad2 1y agoLooks like I was wrong. For some reason I wasn't aware the that judge smuggled the subject out through the back door that goes through the judge's chambers, which typically judges avoid allowing the general public into, because it implies improper fraternization between a judge and someone involved in court cases.
- Jtsummers 1y ago> 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. Since there were multiple agents (the reports and Patel's post all say "agents" plural) they could have left one at the courtroom, or outside, rather than all going away. Then there'd have been no chase and no issue. The question is if the judge should have held the man or not for the agents who chose to leave no one behind to take him into custody after the proceeding finished.
- jandrese 1y agoI wouldn't be surprised if the agents are required to stay together when doing deportation arrests because they don't know when an immigrant might revert to their demon form and incapacitate a lone officer.
- dylan604 1y agowhile funny, there is a reason for federals coming in pairs so they can act as a witness for the other with things like lying to a federal officer. this doesn't sound like the plural just meant 2 here, so it really does come across as Keystone Cops level of falling over themselves to not leave behind someone to keep an eye on their subject.
- wat10000 1y agoI'd bet on malicious compliance so they can show that their good and honest work is being impeded by elitist judges.
- csomar 1y ago> The question is if the judge should have held the man This is bananas. The judges (or anyone else for that matter) should not be able to hold this man (or any other man) without an arrest warrant.
- 1y ago
- armchairhacker 1y agoThis sounds like a case in Trump’s first term. I don’t condone the arrest, but to provide context: > 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… https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/16/us/shelley-joseph-immigration-judge.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/16/us/shelley-joseph-immigra... (https://archive.ph/gByeV https://archive.ph/gByeV) EDIT: Although Shelly Joseph wasn’t arrested, only charged.
- kemayo 1y agoI don't think we've got enough information to say how similar it is. That one sounds like it hung on Joseph actively helping the immigrant to take an unusual route out. If this judge just sent the agents off for their permission then wrapped things up normally and didn't get involved beyond that, I can't see this going anywhere. There's a lot of room for details-we-don't-yet-know to change that opinion, of course.
- rectang 1y agoAccording to a "sources say" quote from a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article published two days ago: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2025/04/23/ice-arrested-mexican-immigrant-after-hearing-before-judge-dugan/83233154007/ https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2025/04/23/ice-... > 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.
- Centigonal 1y agoWhat would have been the right move for Dugan here, according to ICE? Can a judge legally detain a defendant after a pre-trial hearing on the basis of "there are some agents asking about you for unrelated reasons?"
- eterps 1y agoMy thoughts exactly.
- crooked-v 1y agoIt's not related to legal proceedings, so, no. The point of the arrest is to pressure judges into illegally doing it anyway.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 1y agoJudges have what most people would consider insane levels of legitimate power while sitting on the bench itself inside the courtroom. Just outside the door, those powers are not quite so intense, but he can have you thrown in a cage just for not doing what he says, and he can command nearly anything. He could certainly demand that someone not leave the courtroom if he felt like doing so, and there would be no real remedy even if he did so for illegitimate reasons. Perhaps a censure months later.
- rolph 1y agoyou need a warrant and established PC, and you need to request administrative recess of court in session. You cant stay in the framework of US law while walking into court and expect a judge to transfer custody of a defendant because you say so.
- dfxm12 1y agoAccording to ICE? "Comply with whatever we say". It's obvious that the current admin is operating autocratically, outside the law.
- lliamander 1y agoThe right move would have been simply to not help Flores-Ruiz evade ICE.
- JumpCrisscross 1y agoUnder any occasion, it was inappropriate to arrest a judge like this. We’re honestly at the point where I’d be comfortable with armed militias defending state and local institutions from federal police. If only to force someone to think twice about something like this. (To be clear, I’m not happy we’re here. But we are.)
- dylan604 1y agowhy do you think the people willing to be a part of the armed militias you mention are NOT on the same way of thinking as what ICE is attempting to do. that's just how the militia types tend to lean, so I don't think this would have the effect you're looking for
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> that's just how the militia types tend to lean So far. I don’t think you’d have trouble recruiting an educated, well-regulated militia from folks who believe in the rule of law.
- totalkikedeath 1y ago[dead]
- exe34 1y agoyou'd be declared an illegal immigrant and removed to hotel salvador pretty quickly at this point. The orangefuhrer has already said he's coming after the "homegrown" next.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- goatlover 1y agoAt what point will Democratic state governors and legislatures have enough of autocratic takeover? States have their own National Guard.
- spamizbad 1y agoThis to me seems like a completely lawful act on the part of the judge?
- dudeinjapan 1y agoUmm… why didn’t the agents just wait patiently until the proceeding was done?
- ceejayoz 1y agoI don't think I've ever encountered a CBP employee I'd describe as "patient".
- rolph 1y agoLEOs are trained to "be the one in control"
- duxup 1y agoIt does seem like they could have gotten what they wanted by just trying to do their job a little more such as, waiting.
- pseudo0 1y agoThey did, read the complaint: 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... The judge got upset that they were waiting in the public hallway outside the courtroom.
- mmooss 1y agoOne side alleges that, to be clear. We haven't heard the judge's version, heard from witnesses, seen evidence, nor had it adjudicated.
- lincon127 1y agoReading through that, it does seem like a very hasty decision on the judge's part. But then again, I don't know what else you're supposed to do if you think the warrant for the arrest is based on an unjust premise (Which Dugan presumably thought, otherwise I have no idea why she'd act the way she did). This does make it pretty clear that the arrest of the judge is justified, unless there are some special provisions for judges that I'm unaware of that allow judges to be exempt from title 18 code 1071 and code 1505, which is entirely possible since the most relevant thing about US law I know is jurisprudence. Barring that possibility, what should be more on the top of everyone's minds is how this is resolved in court.
- potato3732842 1y agothe unusual thing here is that they're using them against a reasonably politically-connected person who's not their main target. This is a pissing match between authorities. ICE has their panties in a knot that the judge didn't "respect muh authoriah" and do more than the bare leglal minimum for them (which resulted in the guy getting away). On the plus side, one hopes judge will have a pretty good record going forward when it comes to matters of local authorities using the process to abuse people. >(They're normally akin to the "we got Al Capone for tax evasion" situation -- Something that HN frequently trots out as a good thing and the system working as intended. Where are those people now? Why are they so quiet? >someone they were going after, where they couldn't prove the main crime, but they could prove that they lied about other details.) And for every Al there's a dozen Marthas, people who actually didn't do it but the feds never go away empty handed.
- kevin_thibedeau 1y agoShe was convicted for lying, not for the trading.
- potato3732842 1y agoThat was exactly what I meant by "the feds don't go away empty handed". She didn't actually do the thing they went after her for so they found some checkbox to nab her on rather than admit defeat.
- kylehotchkiss 1y ago"respect muh authoriah" ICE officers seem like the ones that couldn't make it through police academy and had no other career prospects. Much like the average HOA, these are people who relish in undeserved power they didn't have to earn. As a society, we owe it to ourselves to make sure people whom we give a lot of power to actually work and earn it.
- euroderf 1y agoIANAL but... The agents had no official role in the proceedings, and if they did not request one, then they have the status of courtroom observers (little difference from courtroom back row voyeurs) and they can go jump in a lake.
- rustcleaner 1y ago>you can't lie to the feds We really need a court case or law passed that says a stalked animal has the right to run (lie) without further punishment resulting from the act of running (lying). Social Contract™, and "you chose it" gaslighty nonsense aside, the state putting someone in a concrete camp for years, or stealing decades worth of savings, is violence even if blessed-off religiously by a black-robed blesser. Running from and lying to the police to preserve one's or one's family's liberty should be a given fact of the game, not additional "crimes." We also need to abolish executions except for oath taking elected office holders convicted of treason, redefine a life sentence as 8 years and all sentencing be concurrent across all layers of state, and put a sixteen year post hoc time limit on custodial sentences (murder someone 12 years ago and get a "life sentence" today as a result? -> 4 years max custody). Why? Who is the same person after a presidential administration? What is a 25+ year sentence going to do to restore the victims' losses? If you feel that strongly after 8 years that it should have been 80, go murder the released perp and serve your 8! The point is to defang government; it has become too powerful in the name of War on _______, and crime has filled the blank really nicely historically.
- tedivm 1y agoThe ICE agents didn't have a warrant, so the judge was under no legal obligation to say anything to them at all.
- dionian 1y agoaccording to this story, they had a warrant: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2025/04/23/ice-arrested-mexican-immigrant-after-hearing-before-judge-dugan/83233154007/ https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2025/04/23/ice-...
- kabdib 1y agonote that ICE often attempts to treat administrative warrants as judicial warrants, and it's unclear from this reporting what they actually had [edit: it was an administrative warrant, not an _actual_ judicial warrant]
- Sharlin 1y agoSo just as valid as a piece of scratch paper with "WARANT" scrawled on it with a crayon.
- rufus_foreman 1y agoWriting "WARANT" in crayon on a piece of scratch paper will not give you the authority to detain someone who is in the country illegally. It is my understanding that a valid ICE administrative warrant gives an ICE officer the authority to detain the person named on the warrant. And in cases like the one in question where ICE has ample time to get the warrant, it is my understanding that an ICE officer without the warrant would not have the authority to detain someone who is in the country illegally. What the ICE warrant doesn't give is the authority to conduct a search of private property without permission. Which the agents in this case were not attempting to do.
- tedivm 1y agoAccording to the story you linked, they claim they had a warrant but the judge and other staff say the warrant was never presented. Further, ICE has a habit of lying about this. They refer to the documents they write as "administrative warrants", which are not real judicial warrants and have no legal standing at all. So when ICE says they presented a warrant it's important to dig in and see if it was one of their fake ones. Here's an article about that last point from the same source you used: 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...
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- silisili 1y agoThis leaves out a couple important things, at least from the complaint - 1 - ICE never entered the courtroom or interrupted. They stayed outside the room, which is public, but the judge didn't like this and sent them away. 2 - The judge, having learned the person in her courtroom was the target, instructed him to leave through a private, jury door. These are from the complaint, so cannot be taken as fact, either.
- duxup 1y agoDoesn't seem to make sense that ICE should be able to interrupt a preceding at will. And the fact that they left and came back and someone they wanted wasn't there, that's on them....
- FireBeyond 1y ago> 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. I used to work as a paramedic. We’d frequently be called to the local tribal jail which had a poor reputation. People would play sick to get out of there for a few hours. If the jail staff thought they were faking and they were due for release in the next week or so, they’d “release” them while we were doing an assessment and tell them “you are getting the bill for this not us” (because in custody the jail is responsible for medical care). Patient would duly get in our ambulance and a few minutes down the road and “feel better”, and request to be let out. The first time this happened my partner was confused. “We need to stop them” - no, we don’t, and legally can’t. “We need to tell the jail so they can come pick them back up” - no, the jail made the choice to release them, they are no longer in custody and free to go. This caught on very quickly with inmates and for a while was happening a couple of times a day before the jail figured out the deal and stopped releasing people early.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- adolph 1y ago> 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. Do you have any evidence of this claim? The FBI affidavit says they were waiting in the public hallway outside, let the bailiff know what they were doing and did not enter the courtroom. The judge did not find out until a public defender took pictures of the arrest team and brought it to the attention of the judge. Maybe the FBI lied, but that seems unlikely given the facts would seem eventually verifiable by security video and uninvolved witness statements. Members of the arrest team reported the following events after Judge DUGAN learned of their presence and left the bench. Judge DUGAN and Judge A, who were both wearing judicial robes, approached members of the arrest team in the public hallway. 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...
- Larrikin 1y ago[flagged]
- adolph 1y agoIf vibes based epistemology works for you, great. Otherwise, it's my username because it's my birth name, feel free to complain to them or consider the Shel Silverstein and Johnny Cash song about a boy's name. The source link is there for anyone to assess validity and I acknowledge in the comment that the FBI isn't an unimpeachable source. It also isn't so totally careless that an agent would make an affidavit for something that can easily be proven untrue under light scrutiny.
- habinero 1y agoWhy would you assume that? It's entirely plausible that a politically motivated set of agents decided to punish this judge.
- 1y ago
- wonderwonder 1y ago"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" This is clearly facilitating escape and interfering with law enforcement. "Private" is the key word here.
- timewizard 1y ago> not telling the ICE agents where the person was or giving them the wrong information about their location. Officers of the court have a higher responsibility to report the truth and cooperate with official processes than regular citizens.
- ajross 1y ago> 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. No, that is the excuse. They found a technicality on which they could arrest her, so they arrested her because they wanted to arrest her. Needless to say people don't get tried on this kind of "look the other way" "obstruction" as a general rule. This case is extremely special. It is abundantly clear that this arrest was made for political reasons, as part of a big and very obvious public policy push.
- gazebo64 1y ago> They found a technicality on which they could arrest her, so they arrested her because they wanted to arrest her If by technicality you mean correctly identifying that the judge intentionally adjourned the suspect's court proceedings and directed them through a non-public exit in order to evade a lawful deportation of a domestic abuser who had already been deported once, yes, it was a "technicality". The short form would be to acknowledge the judge intentionally interfered with a lawful deportation, which is a crime, thus the arrest.
- ajross 1y agoHold up, all that stuff is completely unattested (and would have to be facts tried before a jury anyway). ICE does not have the power to decide on whether someone is a "domestic abuser" or whatever. They were just serving a warrant. But more: What if the suspect was in court on an immigration concern? The judge would have been empowered to enjoin the deportation, no? You agree, right? That's what courts do? In which case, wouldn't the ICE agents be the ones guilty of "obstruction" here? The point of the Rule of Law is that you don't empower individuals to make decisions about justice, ever. You try things before courts, and appeal, and eventually get to a resolution. Trying to do anything else leads to exactly where we are here, where one arm of government is performatively arresting members of another for baldly partisan reasons.
- gazebo64 1y ago