Breaking Down the Defense: A Review of the Charges Against Judge Hannah Dugan

Apr 26, 2025

DISCLAIMER: This article does not provide legal advice. Always do your own due diligence and consult with an experienced professional in your state, region or country. Mr. Jackson is licensed to practice law in California.

Judge Hannah Dugan is not guilty of any crime, and the charges against her should be dismissed immediately.

Let’s start with the basics: the ICE agents showed up with an administrative warrant, a piece of paper signed by ICE itself, not by a neutral judge. In America, administrative warrants don’t give federal agents the right to storm into courtrooms or demand compliance from state judges. Judge Dugan was under no legal obligation to assist ICE. Her courtroom was her responsibility, not the DOJ’s playground. She had the full constitutional authority to manage her courtroom and maintain order, especially against federal overreach.

Next: Eduardo Flores-Ruiz wasn’t hidden. After exiting through a side door, a door commonly used for logistical security reasons, he entered the public hallway where ICE agents saw him. They could have arrested him right there on the spot, but they didn't. One agent, knowing it was Flores-Ruiz, even rode the elevator down with him, side by side, to the first floor of the building, and still didn’t arrest him. Instead, he allowed Flores-Ruiz to walk calmly out of the courthouse doors under their watch.

Finally, let’s call this what it really is: political prosecution. The DOJ has weaponized the criminal justice system against a sitting judge who dared to exercise independent authority over her courtroom. This isn’t about justice. It’s about control. It’s about stomping on the constitutional balance of powers. If we allow this, we don’t just fail Judge Dugan, we fail every principle that protects judicial independence in America.

Let’s be clear: law enforcement had every chance to do their job and chose not to. These agents were upset that the judge didn't bend a knee to their unlawful commands. Blaming a judge for their hesitation is absurd.

Judge Dugan acted with integrity. She protected her courtroom, followed the law, and honored the Constitution. That’s not obstruction. That’s leadership. And it’s exactly what we should expect, and demand, from our judges.

Dismiss the charges. Stand with the rule of law.

Summary and Analysis of Facts and Charges Against Judge Hannah Dugan (according to the complaint with link below)

On April 18, 2025, inside the Milwaukee County Courthouse, a situation unfolded that now sits at the center of a federal criminal case that’s in the news. I wrote about this arrest earlier today. I don’t know what did or didn’t take place, but I thought it would be interesting to run the criminal complaint through our firm’s AI and see what the issues are. The facts alleged (and they may be different from Judge Dugan’s perspective), are as follows.

Federal immigration agents arrived with an administrative warrant to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a defendant scheduled to appear before Judge Hannah Dugan. What happened next, involving courtroom procedures, federal agents waiting in public spaces, and the unexpected use of a side exit into the public hallway, has led to serious charges against Judge Dugan, including obstruction of justice and concealing a person from arrest.

We ran the details through our AI

Tonight, we take a closer look at the facts as laid out in the criminal complaint filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and offer an analysis generated and refined using our firm’s AI system. This breakdown is not speculation, it is a careful, factual review intended to provide clarity, context, and insight into the case as it moves forward.

Please note that these facts are taken from the complaint filed by the DOJ. They are not evidence. It’s safe to assume that Judge Dugan and third-party witnesses may introduce a different set of facts if this case goes to trial.

Based upon what we know so far, here’s a quick overview you might find interesting. Please do keep in mind that we would normally do a complete deep dive and due diligence review of everything below. But, for this project, we wanted to get this out the door this Friday evening.

Summary of Charges Against Judge Hannah Dugan:

Again, you can read the criminal complaint here.

18 U.S.C. § 1505 — Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees (relating to alleged obstruction of an ICE arrest by federal agents).
18 U.S.C. § 1071 — Harboring/concealing a fugitive (alleging helping Eduardo Flores-Ruiz evade arrest).

The Government’s Position:

The DOJ alleges that Judge Dugan became visibly angry when told ICE agents were present to arrest Flores-Ruiz. Instead of letting agents arrest him in the hallway after his court hearing (as allegedly agreed), she allegedly ushered him out a private door used only for staff, helping him escape into the nonpublic area, then out into the public hallway, elevator and eventually outside where it’s alleged he fled. He was arrested later after a foot chase.

Here’s how a criminal defense lawyer, might build a possible defense:

1. Jurisdictional Authority Argument: Separation of Powers

Judges control their courtrooms and adjacent private areas.
ICE had no judicial warrant — only an administrative one (not signed by a federal judge). See more below about this important fact.
Federal law is clear: administrative ICE warrants do not authorize entry into non-public spaces or command state judges to assist.
Therefore, Judge Dugan had no legal obligation to cooperate with or facilitate the arrest.
She acted within her judicial discretion to manage courtroom security, dignity, and operations — not to harbor anyone.

Key Thought: "A federal administrative warrant is not a pass to circumvent courthouse procedure or chain of custody under state law."

2. No Specific Intent to Obstruct or Conceal (Mens Rea Defense)

Both charges require specific criminal intent:
- For §1505 (obstruction), it must be intentional, corrupt interference with proceedings.
- For §1071 (concealment), it must be knowing and intentional hiding to prevent discovery/arrest.
Here, Judge Dugan could argue:
- She was upholding courthouse security procedures, not targeting ICE.
- She may have thought (reasonably) the agents lacked authority without a judicial warrant.
- Her action was administrative and procedural, not designed to aid a fugitive.

Key Thought: "Intent to obstruct is not presumed from courtroom management decisions made under pressure and concern for courthouse integrity."

3. Federal Overreach Argument: ICE’s Actions Were Improper

ICE’s plan to arrest in a courthouse (without prior notice and with only an administrative warrant) violates DOJ and DHS internal guidelines.
Their own policies caution against courthouse arrests except in exigent circumstances (which were absent here).
Defense can argue:
- ICE agents improperly escalated the situation.
- If anyone violated procedures, it was the federal agents, not the state judge.

Key Thought: "Federal agents who disregard their own guidelines cannot bootstrap their misconduct into criminal liability against a judge upholding her court’s autonomy."

4. Questionable "Escape" Timeline (Causation Challenge)

Even accepting everything alleged:
- Flores-Ruiz was not yet formally arrested.
- Defense can argue that Judge Dugan’s actions were not the proximate cause of his escape.
- He voluntarily fled after reaching a public area.
There's no direct evidence (per the affidavit) that she instructed him to flee or knew he would resist arrest.

Key Thought: "A defendant's voluntary flight breaks any causal chain connecting courtroom actions to street-level evasion."

5. First Amendment / Advocacy Argument (if needed)

Judge Dugan may argue she acted to protect due process and public access rights, especially for a criminal defendant not yet convicted.
She could frame her actions as protecting constitutional values, not obstructing justice.

Key Thought: "In America, courts are sanctuaries of due process — not collection points for administrative arrests lacking judicial oversight."

Overall Strategy for Trial (If Needed):

Humanize Judge Dugan: respected, orderly, conscientious, under extreme pressure.
Shift blame toward ICE procedural missteps and lack of warrant authority.
Undermine the specific intent requirement.
Highlight ambiguity in federal policies around courthouse arrests.
Preserve appellate issues around separation of powers and jurisdictional conflict.

In closing:

This is a strong defense case. The feds are taking a highly political and aggressive position — criminalizing what is more properly a dispute over jurisdiction, procedures, and policy.

If framed well, a jury could very easily see Judge Dugan as a professional protecting her court, not a criminal.

Here’s Paragraph 33 in essence:

After Judge Dugan allegedly directed Flores-Ruiz out through the "jury door" into a non-public hallway,
Flores-Ruiz and his attorney reappeared in a public hallway.
DEA Agent A and others saw him.
DEA Agent A even rode the elevator down with Flores-Ruiz and his lawyer.
During this time, Flores-Ruiz was not arrested.
He only fled after voluntarily exiting the courthouse and being approached on the street.

Deep Defense Analysis of Paragraph 33:

1. Break in Causation (Superseding Opportunity to Arrest)

The agents had clear, undisputed opportunities to arrest Flores-Ruiz after he exited the courtroom into the public hallway.
They chose not to do so.
Key legal doctrine:
When an independent event or party (here, ICE agents) could have arrested him but didn't, it breaks the causal chain.

Defense Argument: Even if you assume Judge Dugan's earlier conduct was improper (it wasn't), it was not the direct or proximate cause of Flores-Ruiz evading arrest.

Agent negligence, hesitation, or operational choice intervened — severing the link.

Key phrase:

"The government's own inaction, not Judge Dugan’s courtroom management, was the immediate and superseding cause of any flight."

2. Law Enforcement Discretion: No Obligation to Arrest Later?

Agents had full lawful authority, based on the administrative warrant, to arrest Flores-Ruiz once he entered the public hallway.
Arrests in public areas do not require a judicial warrant under federal law (see United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976)).
No legal barrier stopped them.
They chose strategically to delay, perhaps for tactical reasons — but that was their decision, not Dugan’s interference.

Defense Argument: ICE made a calculated operational choice to delay. Judges are not liable for tactical choices made independently by law enforcement.

3. Affirmative Evidence of No Ongoing Concealment

At the moment Flores-Ruiz appeared in the public hallway:
- He was no longer hidden.
- He was plainly visible.
The essential elements of 18 U.S.C. § 1071 (harboring/concealing) require ongoing concealment at the time the defendant is avoiding arrest.
Here, Flores-Ruiz was in plain sight — thus, no concealment existed at that point. He could have been arrested in the public hallway, in the elevator, or in the public lobby after getting out of the elevator.

Defense Argument: At the moment ICE agents saw Flores-Ruiz, any alleged "concealment" had fully ceased. You cannot conceal someone who is openly walking around in the hallway.

4. Agent on Elevator: Missed Clear Arrest Window

DEA Agent A rode down in the same elevator as Flores-Ruiz.
No resistance. No violence.
Nothing impeded an easy arrest.
Agent chose not to act — maybe waiting for backup, but that’s not Dugan’s fault.

Defense Argument: If federal agents believed arrest was urgent, they had full legal and physical capability to apprehend Flores-Ruiz in the elevator, but declined. Dugan played zero role in what happened next.

5. Flight Occurred After Law Enforcement Made Contact

The foot chase and flight occurred only after agents approached and identified themselves to Flores-Ruiz outside the courthouse.
Until then, Flores-Ruiz was not fleeing or resisting.
His own independent decision to run broke any potential chain of legal liability back to Judge Dugan.

Defense Argument: Flores-Ruiz’s own voluntary criminal act — flight from identified officers, not courtroom handling, caused the escalation. You can't convict a judge for a suspect’s independent choice to flee.

Surgical Summary for Courtroom/Brief Use:

Proximate Cause Broken:
ICE had later, independent chances to arrest; they didn’t.
No Ongoing Concealment:
Flores-Ruiz was publicly visible; §1071 not met.
Officer Tactical Choices:
Arrest could’ve been made in hallway or elevator — tactical, not forced by Dugan.
Suspect’s Independent Flight:
Flores-Ruiz fled only after law enforcement contact, not due to courtroom handling.

Killer Line for Defense Closing: "When officers decline to arrest a suspect standing openly before them, it is their own hesitation, not the dignity of a courtroom, that writes the next chapter. Judges manage proceedings — they do not stage-manage immigration arrests."

Bottom Line:
Paragraph 33 is a gold mine for defense.
It massively weakens causation.
It dismantles concealment.
It shows ICE error, not judicial obstruction.

Several Additional Issues

Federal Law on Administrative ICE Warrants:

An administrative ICE warrant (Form I-200) is NOT a criminal warrant signed by a neutral magistrate or federal judge.
It’s a civil immigration document issued internally by ICE itself — an executive branch agency, not the judiciary.
Key point: An administrative warrant does not carry the authority of a criminal warrant under the Fourth Amendment.

Details:

An administrative ICE warrant is not a license to invade judicial spaces. It carries no authority to enter non-public areas like a courtroom, nor does it compel a judge to surrender control over court proceedings. In America, the courtroom belongs to the law, not to federal enforcement agencies armed with unsigned administrative paperwork. Judge Dugan had every right, and arguably every duty, to maintain order and protect the integrity of her courtroom. Refusing unauthorized federal intrusion is not obstruction. It’s the responsible exercise of judicial authority.

Relevant Case Law:

United States v. Olivares-Rangel, 458 F.3d 1104, 1112 (10th Cir. 2006):
"An ICE administrative warrant, unlike a criminal arrest warrant, is not issued by a neutral magistrate and does not authorize forcible entry into private spaces."
DHS/ICE own policies (post-2018) caution against executing administrative arrests in sensitive locations like courthouses unless extraordinary circumstances exist.

Conclusion on this point: Administrative ICE warrants do not authorize entry into non-public spaces without additional judicial authority.

Do State Judges Have a Legal Obligation to Assist ICE?

There is NO federal or state law that obligates a state judge to assist ICE in enforcing civil immigration law.
ICE detainers, ICE administrative warrants, and requests to hold or cooperate are voluntary under federal law.
Tenth Amendment "anti-commandeering doctrine" (see Murphy v. NCAA, 138 S.Ct. 1461 (2018)) protects states and their officers (including judges) from being compelled to enforce federal programs.

Key case to cite:

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997): "The Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program."
Recent example: After ICE tried to push state courts to honor detainers and administrative warrants, many state supreme courts (including California’s) ruled that local officials — including judges — have no obligation to assist.

Conclusion on this point: Judge Dugan had no legal obligation to cooperate with, facilitate, or prioritize the ICE arrest.

What’s Missing From The Defense Right now?

1. Judicial Immunity Argument Is Weak in Criminal Context

Judicial immunity is very strong for civil suits (like §1983 actions).
BUT — it’s NOT a defense to criminal charges like obstruction or harboring.
Prosecutors will argue: "Judges don’t get to break the law under the cloak of judicial independence."

Defense Fix: Don’t rely on judicial immunity. Instead, argue that Dugan’s actions were within the scope of discretionary courtroom management — not criminal conduct — while still respecting that judges are not above the law.

Key framing: “The question is not whether judges can break the law. The question is whether Judge Dugan broke the law by exercising her legitimate courtroom authority.”

2. Prosecution Will Focus Hard on Dugan’s Intent

18 U.S.C. § 1505 (obstruction) and § 1071 (concealment) both require specific intent — not just poor judgment or procedural error.
Prosecutors will weaponize:
- Her anger and visible frustration,
- Her deliberate decision to use the jury door,
- Her forceful gestures and "stern tone,"
- Her knowledge that ICE agents were present,
- Her choice to move Flores-Ruiz before the hearing was called.

Defense Fix: You must develop strong evidence of good-faith intent:

That she believed she was protecting due process,
That she was managing courtroom safety and operations,
That she thought ICE was improperly present without a judicial warrant,
That her focus was on court integrity, not harboring a fugitive.

In short: You must kill the idea that she had a corrupt motive.

Key line for defense: “This was a judge managing her courtroom, not a criminal mastermind helping someone escape.”

3. Problem of Dugan Moving Flores-Ruiz Before His Hearing Was Called

His case was not called yet.
Prosecutors will argue: "This wasn’t court management — she preempted the proceeding to sneak him out the back before ICE could arrest him."
That's damaging because it suggests a non-neutral motive.

Defense Fix: Frame the movement as security or procedural:

She reasonably feared an ICE confrontation inside the courtroom with victims, family, attorneys, and other defendants present.
Moving him before the hearing started was a legitimate effort to protect courtroom decorum — not obstruction.

Also — evidence about courthouse arrest chaos elsewhere in the country can help show why a judge might act to prevent a volatile scene.

4. Facts Suggest Active Assistance, Not Mere Management

Remember: "Wait, come with me," | Leading Flores-Ruiz through a secure door | Court staff describing "forceful" motions.
Prosecutors will say: "Judge Dugan didn’t just refuse to help ICE — she actively intervened to prevent the arrest."

Defense Fix:
Neutralize this by making her actions look bureaucratic, not personal:

Stress that the same doors are used for in-custody defendants (standard courthouse movement).
Argue confusion or mistake:
She thought it was a safer, orderly way to move a defendant around a disruptive situation.

Use expert testimony about courthouse management policies, if needed.

5. Missed Opportunity to Show Flores-Ruiz Was Not “Fleeing” Initially

Right now, your defense highlights that agents didn’t arrest Flores-Ruiz immediately — that’s good.
But prosecutors will argue: "Dugan gave him a head start to run."

Defense Fix: You need evidence/testimony to show:

Flores-Ruiz wasn’t running or hiding when he exited the courtroom.
He walked normally with his attorney into the public hallway — no sign of evasion.
He only fled when ICE identified themselves outside the courthouse — and that was his independent decision.

Use agent cross-examination: "Isn’t it true you observed Mr. Flores-Ruiz walking normally and calmly after exiting Courtroom 615?"

If I Were the Trier of Fact, These Issues Would Matter Most:

Did Judge Dugan have specific, corrupt intent to interfere?
Was there an independent opportunity for law enforcement to arrest?
Was the defendant's voluntary flight an intervening cause?
Was Dugan acting within a plausible understanding of her role in courtroom security?

Tip: If the defense frames it around intent, causation, and good-faith authority, and humanizes her (respected judge, caught in a messy jurisdictional gap, doing her best), then the prosecution’s case looks like government overreach.

Summary: What You Must Do To Win:

Risk

Defense Strategy

Judicial Immunity Won't Help

Frame actions as legitimate courtroom management

Prosecutors Will Push “Corrupt Intent”

Emphasize good-faith courtroom security, not aiding flight

Moving Before Hearing Looks Bad

Explain as decorum/safety decision

Assistance Looks Active

Argue orderly movement, not evasion

Independent Flight Afterward

Highlight agents' hesitation and suspect's choice to run

Final Takeaway:

You are in a strong position — but this case will be won or lost on the question of Judge Dugan’s intent and courtroom authority.

Humanize her.
Normalize her decision-making.
Break the causation link.
Hammer "no specific intent" like a drum.

Conclusion

I hope you found this unofficial inside look at some of the key issues in the case both informative and thought-provoking. This analysis was based solely on an initial but careful reading of the criminal complaint on file, a quick preliminary AI analysis, and is intended to offer perspective, not legal advice. As always, it’s important to remember: every case has multiple layers, and public documents are just one part of the full story.

Please keep in mind that this is not a substitute for legal counsel. Always do your own due diligence, research primary sources, and consult with a qualified professional before drawing firm conclusions or making decisions based on legal matters.

Mitch Jackson, Esq. | links

This post is free—but building a future rooted in truth and democracy takes real investment. If my work speaks to you, subscribe and if you can, chip in $5/month or $50/year—because independent journalism that actually gives a damn (and delivers ideas you can use today) is worth backing.

Uncensored Objection. Cross-examining political BS.

Discussion about this post