19 ms·

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 tak

• kemayo 2y ago
  I 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 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    • BizarroLand 2y ago
      For 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 2y ago
        The judge wasn’t arrested for following procedure. Read the complaint.
    • bix6 2y ago
      Considering 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.
      • deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      • ivape 2y ago
        I was talking to someone earlier about how we in America, today, are not entitled to anything. Just in the last hundred years, people lived under secret police, dictators, state-controlled media, occupation, you name it. Hundreds of millions of people lived their whole life under the KGB or Stasi. Hundreds of millions live in autocracy even today. Some straight up live in a warzone as we speak. The idea that "we" can't be going through this is beyond entitled. Nothing is guaranteed to us. We are being shown how fragile this all is by the universe.
        • bix6 2y ago
          The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. I expect America to be a beacon of light and I will fight for it. We all need to fight for it, especially the people who frequent this message board because we are among the most privileged and capable. It’s disappointing to me how many of our tech leaders forget what made them great in the first place and abuse us all in the pursuit of personal wealth.
    • intermerda 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • pjc50 2y ago
        Ah, but: freedom for "me". The libertarian HN posters are in favor of unlimited freedom for themselves and a police state for everyone else, especially non-Americans who dare to exist in America.
        • dingdongbong 2y ago
          [dead]
        • bodiekane 2y ago
          Libertarian is completely the opposite side of the political spectrum from police state/authoritarianism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart
          • ceejayoz 2y ago
            As is Communism. In both cases, mostly in theory.
          • mindslight 2y ago
            And yet many people calling themselves "Libertarian" signed themselves up for full-throated support of this fascist wannabe dictator. Their supposed interest in "freedom" doesn't extend past their own interest in oppressing others. The dynamic is especially pronounced in the surveillance industry, where digital authoritarianism gets a pass by appealing to the individual fantasy of creating your very own digital authoritarian startup. signed, an actual libertarian.
    • Spivak 2y ago
      If it turns autocratic then there's no discussion to be had. Judge will waterboarded in Gitmo and Trump is de-facto king. We are no longer a nation of laws, the USA is renamed to Trumpopolis and we all have to get government mandated orange spray tans. So assuming that doesn't happen, this is an action by a non-autocratic executive meant to have a chilling effect on low level judges who don't want to spend a few days in lockup just because. A knob that the executive is (mostly) allowed to turn but that is considered in poor taste if you wish to remain on good terms with the judiciary. The bar for arrest is really low and the courts decide if she committed a crime which she obviously didn't.
      • trealira 2y ago
        You seem to be quite blasé about the possibility of autocracy. But yes, there is a risk that Trump becomes a dictator and we're no longer a nation of laws. It depends on how people like us react to consolidations of power like this, or the illegal impoundment, or cases like Kilmar Abrego Garcia's. The law only matters insofar as we and our representatives can enforce it.
        • Spivak 2y ago
          I'm not so much blasé about it, more just nihilistic because I am the last person with any kind of power to stop it. I imagine most of HN falls into this bucket of people with no real political power or influence. My realistic option if it happens is to move.
          • trealira 2y ago
            I'm also making plans contingency plans to move, but I may not be able to. Individually, no, we don't have power, but if everyone actually protested, we would - the Ukrainian revolution[1] started out as just mass protests (Euromaidan), for instance. The problem is that not enough of us are doing it, maybe because too many people are apathetic, uninformed, or don't take the possibility of autocracy seriously. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity
          • 2y ago
    • kemayo 2y ago
      I'm not saying it's good, for sure. But I don't think it's a sign that the push for autocratic authoritarianism is winning, either. My optimistic take is that this is the sort of stupid overreach that works to turn other arms of government against the executive. The judiciary tends to be prickly about its prerogatives, and Trump's far from the point where he can just push stuff through without some cover.
      • hypeatei 2y ago
        > My optimistic take is that this is the sort of stupid overreach that works to turn other arms of government against the executive This is your take given the blatant corruption and clear constitutional violations of this administration? Sure, let's hope that norms and vibes save us against an executive ignoring due process. Those other branches don't even have a way to enforce anything; the executive are the ones who arrest people.
        • kemayo 2y ago
          The power of the executive is constrained, ultimately, by what people let them do. Including people inside the executive branch -- the people who're doing the arresting, transporting the prisoners, gunning down the protesters, etc. There's a lot of people involved who aren't committed to some authoritarian project, they're just... doing their job. They can be swayed by vibes, and general unpopularity of the regime. The alternative to this view is either giving up or preparing for armed struggle. It's certainly possible that we could get there, but I don't think it's guaranteed yet. (I acknowledge that this position is quite the blend of optimism and cynicism.)
          • Hikikomori 2y ago
            Like this judge they're being ousted for the smallest pushback and are being replaced by project 2025 people, they even set up a system that you can apply to do exactly this. Trump (or Vance that is fully in with Thiel) will have full control over all agencies where all low level employees are on board with this Christo fascist takeover and the judiciary will be powerless.
  • californical 2y ago
    > incredibly doubtful that they could be successfully prosecuted Strongly agree. But, as I’m sure we both know, some other less-politically-connected people will be a bit more afraid of getting arrested on ridiculous grounds because of this. So, mission accomplished.
  • pjc50 2y ago
    > incredibly doubtful that they could be successfully prosecuted for this. But they can be successfully arrested. You can beat the rap but not the ride, etc. The US is not yet at the level of dysfunction where jurisdiction is settled with gunfire, but ICE seem to be determined to move that closer.
    • whats_a_quasar 2y ago
      "You can beat the rap but not the ride" is phrased like the judge actually did anything wrong. That seems very doubtful. This administration has shown they are not entitled to the presumption that they are acting in good faith.
      • hackinthebochs 2y ago
        "You can't beat the ride" is saying that cops can punish you regardless of whether what you did was illegal.
        • pc86 2y ago
          That's certainly one interpretation of it, and a pretty reasonable one. However, I typically interpret it as "if the police think you've committed a crime, you are going to jail and almost nothing is going to stop that." In that incredibly famous "Don't Talk to the Police" talk[0], the attorney asks the former-cop-turned-law-student if he's every been convinced not to arrest someone based on what the suspect said. Not a single time in his entire law enforcement career. This is also sort of the crux of the talk - if nothing you can say will convince the police not to arrest you, and things you do say can make things worse, your best bet is to just shut up and talk to an attorney if it gets to that point. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
          • QuercusMax 2y ago
            I think we're all agreeing here. "You can't beat the ride" means that if the cops want to arrest you, lock you up, etc., you can't do anything about it. Doesn't matter if you're guilty, innocent, or just a random bystander, you're not going to stop them from taking you and doing whatever they want in the process.
  • alabastervlog 2y ago
    Successful prosecution isn't needed, the harassment and incurring high legal fees will discourage a dozen other judges who might be less than boot-licklingly helpful to the autocrat.
    • dylan604 2y ago
      I'm sure there will be plenty of attorneys willing to take on these cases pro bono.
    • potato3732842 2y ago
      That's the reality less equal animals have had to live under since basically forever. I have a hard time seeing it as a bad thing that state and local authorities would have to view the feds the way we have to view all three because it brings our incentives more in alignment.
  • adolph 2y ago
    > 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 is untrue if the FBI affidavit is believed. The judge adjourned the case without speaking to the prosecuting attorney, which is a change to the process of the hearing regarding three counts of Battery-Domestic Abuse-Infliction of Physical Pain or Injury. Later that morning, Attorney B realized that FloresRuiz’s case had never been called and asked the court about it. Attorney B learned that FloresRuiz’s case had been adjourned. This happened without Attorney B’s knowledge or participation, even though Attorney B was present in court to handle Flores-Ruiz’s case on behalf of the state, and even though victims were present in the courtroom. A Victim Witness Specialist (VWS) employed by the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office was present in Courtroom 615 on April 18, 2025. The VWS made contact with the victims in Flores-Ruiz’s criminal case, who were also in court. The VWS was able to identify Flores-Ruiz based upon the victims’ reactions to his presence in court. The VWS observed Judge DUGAN gesture towards Flores-Ruiz and an unknown Hispanic woman. [...] The VWS stated that Judge DUGAN then exited through the jury door with Flores-Ruiz and the Hispanic woman. The VWS was concerned because Flores-Ruiz’s case had not yet been called, and the victims were waiting. 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...
  • pseudo0 2y ago
    That is not what is alleged in 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 allegation is that the judge got upset that ICE was waiting outside the courtroom, sent the law enforcement officers to the chief judge's office, and then adjourned the hearing without notifying the prosecutor and snuck the man with a warrant out through a non-public door not normally used by defendants. If those facts are accurate, it sure sounds like obstruction. Judges have to obey the law just like everyone else.
    • ClumsyPilot 2y ago
      You are basically saying that everybody has to help ICE for free and on occasion do the job of ICE for free. That’s very totalitarian. At the same time, it is settled law that a police officer cannot be held liable for not protecting citizens or not arresting someone. So you have more obligations than a police officer yet getting none of the pay or legal protections Imagine you were a private tutor, in a private school on private land. ICE barges into the class trying to arrest one of the kids, but their paperwork is not in order so they promised to come back in 20 minutes Do you imagine it will be possible to continue with the lesson as normal after such an event? It is your discretion, when to start or stop a lesson, you work for yourself. Do you imagine you should be obligated as a teacher to continue the lesson as if nothing has happened? And if children want to leave to hold them by force? why is it your problem That ICE isn’t competent and can’t get their shit right the first time?
      • pseudo0 2y ago
        ICE had a warrant. They were being courteous to the court by waiting until after the hearing instead of scooping the guy up on his way in. And no, you don't have to help ICE, you just can't obstruct them. Sneaking a suspect out a back door while you stall the police is textbook, classic obstruction.
        • frognumber 2y ago
          You're downvoted because ICE did not have a warrant. ICE prints pieces of paper which they call "administrative warrants." Those were never reviewed by a judge and are internal ICE documents. An administrative warrant is not an actual warrant in any meaningful sense. It's a meaningful document (contrary to what you might read; it's not something one can just print on a laser printer and called it a day), but the "administrative" changes the meaning dramatically. It seems like there were plenty of errors all around, in this situation, both on the judge's side and on ICE's side. However, I can't imagine any of those rose to the level of criminal behavior. Sneaking a suspect out a back door while you stall the police is textbook, classic obstruction, but that changes quite a bit when it's a government employee operating within their scope of duty. Even if they make a mistake. Schools don't want students scared to be there. Courtrooms want to count on cases not being settled by default because people are scared to show up. There is a valid, lawful reason for not permitting ICE to disrupt their government functions. That's doubly true when you can't count on ICE following the law and might ship someone off to El Salvador. Asking an LLM, whether or not the judge broke laws is ambiguous. It is unambiguous that they showed poor judgment, and there should probably be consequences. However, what's not ambiguous is that the consequences should be through judicial oversight mechanisms, and not the FBI arresting the judge. As a footnote, a judge not being able to rely on ICE following lawful orders significantly strengthens the government interest argument.
• ldoughty 2y ago
  According to the FBI complaint that was just made available: Judge Dugan escorted the subject through a "jurors door" to private hallways and exits instead of having the defendant leave via the main doors into the public hallway, where she visually confirmed the agents were waiting for him. I couldn't tell if the judge knew for certain that ICE was only permitted to detain the defendant in 'public spaces' or not. Regardless, the judge took specific and highly unusual action to ensure the defendant didn't go out the normal exit into ICE hands -- and that's the basis for the arrest. I don't necessarily agree with ICE actions, but I also can't refute that the judge took action to attempt to protect the individual. On one side you kind of want immigrants to show up to court when charged with crimes so they can defend themselves... but on the other side, this individual deported in 2013 and returned to the country without permission (as opposed to the permission expiring, or being revoked, so there was no potential 'visa/asylum/permission due process' questions)
  • mjburgess 2y ago
    If this is all true, it still requires the judge be under some legal order to facilitate the deportation -- unless they have a warrant of the relevant type, the judge is under no such obligation. With a standard (administrative) warrant, ICE have no authority to demand the arrest.
    • trothamel 2y ago
      https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1071 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1071 That's a general applicable law that prevents anyone - judge or not - from interfering with an apprehension.
      • mjburgess 2y ago
        That applies to warrants for arrest. The standard warrant ICE operate with is a civil warrant, and does not confer any actual authority to arrest an individual.
        • 2y ago
• mullingitover 2y ago
  I'd wager dollars to donuts this is a "You'll beat the rap but you won't beat the ride" intimidation tactic: the FBI knows it doesn't have a case, but they don't need to have a case to handcuff the judge and throw them in jail for a few days. That intimidation and use of force against the judicial branch is the end in itself.
  • tbrownaw 2y ago
    > wager dollars to donuts Donuts at the local grocery store are $7/dozen. If you're somewhere with generally higher prices, this bet might not be as lopsided as it's traditionally meant to be.
    • fc417fc802 2y ago
      The day old ones are $6/dozen here. The fresh ones are $1 each.
  • SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
    You'll be happy to know, then, that the judge was released on her own recognizance.
    • mullingitover 2y ago
      I don't think you understood my point: there's no undoing the arrest, which was the only real goal here. The administration is publicly demonstrating that it can perform wrongful arrests of judges with impunity. They don't care if they get released later.
• lolinder 2y ago
  What's being alleged is that she escorted the person out a rear entrance that is only used by juries and defendants who are in custody, not defense attorneys or free defendants. It is alleged that she interrupted the defendant on their way out the regular customary door and guided them through the rear door instead. If those allegations are true (which is a big if at this stage), it's not hard to see how that could be construed to be a private act taken outside the course of her normal duties to deliberately help the defendant evade arrest. That doesn't make what she did morally wrong, of course, but there is a world of difference between the kind of abuse of power that many people here are assuming and someone getting arrested for civil disobedience—intentionally breaking a law because they felt it was the right choice.
• Gabriel54 2y ago
  Did you read the warrant? They did not demand the judge tell them anything. They knew he was there and were waiting outside the courtroom to arrest him. The judge confronted them and was visibly upset. She directed the agents elsewhere and then immediately told Ruiz and his counsel to exit via a private hallway. The attorney prosecuting the case against Ruiz and his (alleged) victims were present in the court and confused when his case was never called, even though everyone was present in the court.
  • ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
    "elsewhere" here means "to the correct location they should have gone in the first place, to give notice of, and gain approval for, their actions" it's a pretty important detail
    • dataflow 2y ago
      > it's a pretty important detail It doesn't seem like it matters here. Per 18 USC §1071: Whoever harbors or conceals any person for whose arrest a warrant or process has been issued under the provisions of any law of the United States, so as to prevent his discovery and arrest, after notice or knowledge of the fact that a warrant or process has been issued for the apprehension of such person, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned. Unless you're arguing that the facts are misrepresented, or that the law is somehow unconstitutional, this seems pretty slam-dunk, no? The judge seems to have deliberately escorted the defendant to the jury room for the purpose of letting them hide/escape arrest. That's all there seems to be to it. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/04/25/us/judgedugancomplaint.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/04/25/us/judgedugan...
      • ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
        Not sure that applies to arbitrary documents that the bearer claims is a warrant, rather than a judge-signed warrant. Either way, it wasn't illegal to send them to where they needed to go, and it wasn't illegal to let this dude use another door, so the illegality seems to depend on whether the executive can concoct their own warrants without any oversight and gain arbitrary access for arbitrary reasons. > The judge seems to have deliberately escorted the defendant to the jury room for the purpose of letting them hide/escape arrest. Was the judge, beforehand, served with a judge-signed warrant indicating that they intended to, and were authorized to, arrest this person? If not, then it wasn't letting them escape arrest, it was letting them escape from 2 random dudes who may or may not even be law enforcement, much less law enforcement judicially authorized to arrest the dude.
• wonderwonder 2y ago
  "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" This is a private act and involved a private hallway