Friday morning the Trump administration crossed a line that many legal scholars and human rights advocates have long warned was approaching: a sitting state court judge, Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah C. Dugan, was arrested by the FBI on federal criminal charges.
According to the official criminal complaint filed in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge Dugan stands accused of obstructing federal immigration agents by allegedly helping a defendant, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, exit her courtroom through a nonpublic door to avoid arrest on an administrative immigration warrant. She is charged with two offenses: obstructing or impeding a proceeding before a department or agency of the United States (18 U.S.C. § 1505) and concealing an individual to prevent his discovery and arrest (18 U.S.C. § 1071).
The Biden-era precedents of judicial independence, which had restored some measure of restraint after Trump’s first administration, seem now to have crumbled entirely. What happened in Milwaukee is not an isolated incident—it is a harbinger of a wider assault on democratic institutions.
As Senator Bernie Sanders put it plainly: “Let’s be clear. Trump’s arrest of Judge Dugan in Milwaukee has nothing to do with immigration. This latest attack is about one thing: unchecked power. It is time for my colleagues in the Republican Party to stand up to his growing authoritarianism.”
Senator Alex Padilla of California echoed the warning: “Democracy is under attack in America. This latest demonstration of authoritarian overreach undermines the judiciary as a coequal branch of government and disregards the rule of law.”
The facts in the complaint are revealing—and chilling.
“Let’s be clear. Trump’s arrest of Judge Dugan in Milwaukee has nothing to do with immigration. This latest attack is about one thing: unchecked power. It is time for my colleagues in the Republican Party to stand up to his growing authoritarianism.” – Senator Bernie Sanders
The 13-page affidavit from FBI Special Agent Lindsay Schloemer lays out the federal government’s case. On April 18, 2025, ICE agents, along with DEA and FBI personnel, arrived at the Milwaukee County Courthouse. Their target was Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a man facing domestic violence charges, who agents determined was undocumented and subject to a prior expedited removal order.
ICE officers carried only an administrative immigration warrant, a document signed internally by ICE officials—not by a judge. It authorized Flores-Ruiz’s detention for immigration violations, but notably lacked the legal force of a judicial warrant.
As Flores-Ruiz appeared for his state court hearing before Judge Dugan, federal agents waited outside Courtroom 615 in a public hallway. According to the complaint, the courtroom deputy and bailiffs were informed of the federal presence. Witnesses described how Judge Dugan, upon learning about the agents waiting outside, became “visibly angry” and commented that the situation was “absurd.”
Rather than allow ICE to arrest Flores-Ruiz immediately after his hearing, Judge Dugan allegedly took extraordinary steps:
- She confronted the federal agents in the hallway, demanding to know whether they possessed a judicial warrant.
- Upon learning they had only an administrative warrant, she allegedly ordered them to leave the courthouse or speak with the Chief Judge.
- She allegedly expedited the handling of Flores-Ruiz’s criminal matter without calling his case publicly, then personally escorted Flores-Ruiz and his attorney through the courtroom’s “jury door,” a nonpublic exit generally reserved for in-custody defendants and jurors .
Federal agents eventually located Flores-Ruiz outside the courthouse and arrested him after a foot chase.
To federal prosecutors, Judge Dugan’s actions amounted to obstruction. But viewed through a constitutional lens, her actions were a defense of judicial autonomy against executive branch overreach.
The reaction from civil liberties organizations was swift and alarmed.
The ACLU of Wisconsin and the national ACLU issued a joint statement condemning the arrest, stressing: “Judges have a duty to maintain order in their courtrooms and ensure the fair administration of justice, and federal law does not require state judges to act as agents of federal immigration enforcement.”
They continued: “These unprecedented actions seriously undermine faith in our legal system and threaten the freedom and safety of judges who make decisions the administration doesn’t like.”
The Vera Institute of Justice likewise warned that: “By targeting a local criminal court judge, the Trump administration is escalating its dangerous campaign to criminalize immigrants, undermine judicial independence, and destabilize the foundations of our legal system.”
This is no exaggeration. Arresting a judge for courtroom management decisions—especially where the judge demanded a judicial warrant before allowing executive intrusion—is a direct attack on the concept of the judiciary as a coequal branch of government.
As Senator Scott Wiener, author of California’s courthouse protection bill SB 785, put it: “It’s hard to overstate the level of authoritarianism this escalation represents: Arresting a judge for the way she runs her courtroom.”
It is important to underscore the context of this confrontation: ICE has long targeted courthouses as hunting grounds for undocumented immigrants. Civil rights groups, legal associations, and even some prosecutors have condemned this practice as dangerous to public safety. When immigrants fear that attending court could lead to arrest, they are less likely to appear as witnesses, victims, or defendants, corroding the very fabric of the justice system.
Judge Dugan’s reported questioning of ICE agents—asking whether they had a judicial warrant, challenging their right to apprehend individuals inside the courthouse without court approval—was not unusual. It was legally appropriate and echoed guidance issued by numerous state court systems across the country.
The Trump administration’s strategy, however, has been to blur the line between immigration enforcement and the basic functions of state justice systems. In this view, judges who refuse to cooperate become enemies, not neutral arbiters.
What makes the arrest of Judge Dugan so alarming is not just that it targets an individual judge. It strikes at the principle that courts must be independent of executive control.
Senator Padilla’s words could not be more apt: “These attacks on our justice system and the judges that uphold it do nothing but tear down the very foundations of what is most important to our country — those unalienable rights.”
The government’s own affidavit against Judge Dugan is filled with telling details. It dwells extensively on her demeanor—describing her as “angry,” “confrontational,” and “visibly upset”—as though emotional disapproval of federal overreach were itself a crime .
Nowhere does the affidavit allege that Judge Dugan used force, threatened violence, or engaged in anything other than what can be characterized as courtroom management within her legal authority.
Her “obstruction,” it seems, was insisting that constitutional norms be respected inside her courtroom.
History teaches that authoritarian regimes often begin by hollowing out independent institutions under the guise of “law and order.”
- They first target individuals who challenge executive authority.
- They then normalize attacks on judges, journalists, legislators, and dissenters.
- Finally, they claim that the exercise of independent judgment is itself unlawful.
As the ACLU correctly warned, the integrity of the judiciary is what holds autocratic power in check. When judges fear arrest for resisting unlawful executive demands, constitutional governance becomes a façade.
The image of Judge Dugan—a respected jurist and former public defender—being arrested by the FBI at the direction of the president, charged over the manner in which she conducted her courtroom, is profoundly disturbing. It evokes the dark early stages of authoritarianism in countries where democracy ultimately failed.
Judge Hannah Dugan’s arrest must not be seen in isolation. It is part of a broader, dangerous pattern:
- The threats to impeach judges who rule against Trump.
- The attacks on lawyers who defend immigrants and the accused.
- The demand that courts serve as enforcement arms of the executive branch.
Senator Bernie Sanders was right when he warned that this is about “unchecked power.”
Senator Padilla was right when he said democracy is under attack.
The ACLU and the Vera Institute are right to call this an assault on due process and judicial independence.
And we must recognize it for what it is: a chilling, authoritarian step toward the dismantling of the rule of law in America.
This arrest must be met with outrage, organized resistance, and unwavering support for judicial independence.
Because if we allow this moment to pass without consequence, it will not be the last.
First they came for the judges.
What have I been hearing for the last few years when the DOJ and democrat prosecutors went after Trump?
Oh that’s right, “no one is above the law”.
Keith says ineffect no judge is above the law — true. But he ignores the real danger: normalizing arrests of sitting judges risks executive intimidation of the judiciary. That’s a bigger threat to democracy than one judge’s mistake. I’m sure he’ll once again attempt to normalize the conduct with a fraught comparison.