In a Milwaukee courtroom, a state judge allegedly made a decision that has ignited a constitutional firestorm, pitting her own authority against the power of the federal government. Now, that decision has led to her own indictment.
The case against Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan – who stands accused of helping an undocumented immigrant evade federal agents waiting outside her courtroom – is more than just a local crime story. It is an unprecedented legal battle that forces a direct confrontation between state sovereignty and federal law.
The unfolding drama raises a profound question that goes to the heart of our constitutional system: Where does a state judge’s authority end, and the power of the federal government begin?
An Alleged Act of Defiance
The incident that sparked this conflict reads like a scene from a legal thriller. According to the federal indictment, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents were present at the Milwaukee County Courthouse to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an undocumented immigrant with a prior deportation order who was appearing before Judge Dugan on separate state misdemeanor charges.
After the hearing concluded, Judge Dugan allegedly escorted Flores-Ruiz and his attorney through a private, restricted exit, allowing him to bypass the federal agents waiting in the public hallway.
The Department of Justice acted swiftly, charging Judge Dugan with obstruction of justice and concealing a person from arrest. If convicted on both counts, she faces up to six years in prison.
A Defense Built on Sovereignty and Immunity
Judge Dugan’s high-profile legal team, which includes a former U.S. Solicitor General, has mounted a defense built on formidable constitutional principles. They argue that the case should be dismissed for two primary reasons.
First, they claim judicial immunity – the long-standing doctrine that protects judges from being sued for actions they take in their official judicial capacity. They argue that managing her courtroom and the exit of those inside it was part of her duties as a judge.
Second, and more broadly, they contend that the federal prosecution itself violates the principles of federalism and the Tenth Amendment. By charging a state judge for actions taken within her own state courthouse, they argue the federal government is illegally interfering with Wisconsin’s sovereign right to administer its own justice system.
“This is only one step in what we expect will be a long journey to preserve the independence and integrity of our courts.” – Steven Biskupic, attorney for Judge Dugan
The Supremacy of Federal Law
The federal government, and now a federal magistrate judge, have forcefully rejected these arguments.
In a recent recommendation, U.S. Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph stated that judicial immunity, while powerful, does not shield a judge from criminal prosecution. She wrote that “a judge’s actions, even when done in her official capacity, does not bar criminal prosecution if the actions were done in violation of the criminal law.”
At the heart of the government’s case is the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2). This foundational principle establishes that federal laws – in this case, federal immigration and obstruction laws – are the “supreme Law of the Land,” and state authority cannot be used to undermine them.
Prosecutors argue that while Judge Dugan has authority inside her courtroom, that authority does not extend to actively helping someone evade federal law enforcement.
“The core of the government’s case rests on a simple, powerful principle: a state courtroom cannot be used as a sanctuary to violate federal law.”
A Collision of Sovereigns
The ultimate decision on whether the case proceeds now rests with a U.S. District Judge. But no matter the outcome of this specific charge, the case has exposed the deep and often contentious relationship between state courts and federal immigration authorities.
It highlights a fundamental tension in our system of government. States are sovereign entities with their own independent court systems. Yet, they exist within a federal system where the national government is tasked with enforcing national laws, like immigration.
This case forces a direct and uncomfortable question: What happens when a state official believes they are upholding the integrity of their courtroom, but the federal government believes they are committing a crime? The answer will have significant implications for the future of federal law enforcement and the independence of state courts across the country.