More than 150 retired federal and state judges, spanning both political parties, unleashed a scathing rebuke of the Trump administration’s arrest of Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan on April 25, 2025, labeling it an “embarrassing spectacle” that threatens the Constitution’s separation of powers.
In a May 5, 2025, letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, the judges condemned the public humiliation of Dugan—arrested in her courtroom and paraded in handcuffs—as a deliberate attempt to intimidate the judiciary amid Trump’s aggressive immigration crackdown.
This unprecedented clash, rooted in Dugan’s alleged obstruction of an ICE operation, escalates tensions between the executive and judicial branches, raising alarms about constitutional violations and their impact on Americans’ trust in justice.
The Arrest That Shocked Milwaukee
Judge Hannah Dugan, a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge since 2016, was arrested by the FBI on April 25, 2025, charged with obstruction of an official proceeding and concealing an individual to prevent arrest.
The charges stem from an April 18 incident where Dugan allegedly helped Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican national deported in 2013, evade ICE agents after a pretrial hearing on battery charges.
According to court documents, Dugan confronted plainclothes ICE agents in a public courthouse hallway, demanded a different warrant, and directed Flores-Ruiz and his attorney to exit through a nonpublic “jury door,” allowing a brief escape before agents apprehended him after a foot chase.
The arrest’s execution drew immediate outrage. FBI Director Kash Patel announced it on social media, posting and later deleting a photo of Dugan in handcuffs, ankle shackles, and a waist chain, escorted from the Milwaukee County Courthouse.
Attorney General Pam Bondi, on Fox News’ “America Reports,” called Dugan a “criminal judge sitting on a criminal bench,” accusing her of endangering law enforcement and victims by “escorting a criminal defendant out the back door.”
The Wisconsin Supreme Court, on April 29, temporarily suspended Dugan’s judicial duties, prohibiting her from court functions pending her May 15 arraignment, where she faces up to 10 years if convicted.
The Judges’ Letter: A Constitutional Alarm
The bipartisan group of over 150 former judges, led by former federal judges Nancy Gertner and J. Michael Luttig, sent their letter to Bondi on May 5, 2025, decrying the arrest as a “cynical effort” to undermine the rule of law.
Signatories included retired Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Janine Geske and former judges appointed by presidents from both parties, reflecting a rare unified front. The letter criticized the DOJ’s tactics as a violation of constitutional principles, specifically:
Article III Judicial Independence: The judges argued that Dugan’s public arrest, coupled with Bondi’s “deranged” label and Patel’s social media posts, was designed to intimidate the judiciary, violating Article III’s role as a co-equal branch, per Marbury v. Madison (1803).
They noted the DOJ could have issued a summons, standard for white-collar cases, rather than staging a “perp walk” that flouted DOJ media policies against prejudicial statements.
Fifth Amendment Due Process: By declaring Dugan a “criminal judge” before trial, Bondi and Patel undermined her presumption of innocence, a Fifth Amendment cornerstone. The letter called this “highly unethical,” citing DOJ regulations barring statements that could bias proceedings.
Article II Overreach: The judges accused Trump’s DOJ of exceeding Article II’s executive authority by targeting judges who rule against administration policies, such as immigration enforcement.
They referenced Trump’s broader judicial battles, including a March 2025 SCOTUS order halting illegal deportations, as evidence of retaliatory intimidation.
The letter warned that such actions “destroy the trust the American people have in the nation’s judges,” eroding the judiciary’s role as “guardians of the rule of law,” not the president.
Intimidation or Accountability?
The Dugan arrest and judges’ response raise complex constitutional issues:
Is the DOJ weaponizing arrests? The Fifth Amendment ensures due process, but six former Wisconsin federal prosecutors called Dugan’s handcuffed “perp walk” and shackles “unusual and unnecessary,” noting summonses are typical for non-violent charges.
The judges’ letter argues the spectacle aimed to “chill the judiciary,” especially after Trump’s May 4, 2025, Truth Social poll asking if judges aiding immigrants should be prosecuted, signaling a broader campaign against judicial dissent.
Does executive rhetoric violate separation of powers? Article III establishes judicial independence, but Bondi’s Fox News threats to prosecute judges who “think they’re above the law” and Patel’s social media posts breach DOJ guidelines, per ethics groups like Public Citizen.
These actions, following Trump’s clashes with over 200 court rulings on deportations and tariffs, suggest an Article II overreach to pressure Article III, per Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952).
Are constitutional protections at risk? The Eighth Amendment bars cruel and unusual punishment, and Dugan’s public shaming, despite no prior convictions, raises proportionality concerns.
Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley called it an “outrageous” abuse, arguing it punishes without due process, a Fifth Amendment violation, especially as Trump’s team ignored SCOTUS orders, like the March 2025 Kilmar Abrego Garcia case, where a wrongful deportation defied a court mandate.
For Americans, this means shaken faith in courts, less safe communities, and stretched budgets, as judicial-executive clashes spill into daily life.