A Wisconsin state judge indicted for allegedly obstructing the arrest of a Mexican immigrant by US authorities said the charges should be dismissed because she’s immune from prosecution for official acts — a legal defense similar to one used by President
The criminal case against Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah C. Dugan “is virtually unprecedented and entirely unconstitutional,” her lawyers argued Wednesday in a court filing. “Immunity is not a defense to the prosecution to be determined later by a jury or court. It is an absolute bar to the prosecution at the outset.”
Dugan is accused of trying to prevent US Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials from arresting Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, who appeared in her court April 18 to face domestic battery charges. Prosecutors allege the judge misled ICE officials and escorted Flores-Ruiz out of the court through a non-public exit to avoid authorities.
Flores-Ruiz, who had been targeted by ICE for deportation, was detained outside the courthouse after a foot chase, federal officials said. The judge was indicted on federal charges Tuesday. Dugan is scheduled to be arraigned and enter a plea Thursday in federal court in Milwaukee.
Dugan’s arrest on April 25 came after Trump began his crackdown on illegal immigration, which has led to multiple lawsuits by migrants and some states and so-called “sanctuary cities” that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
Prosecutors and a lawyer for Dugan did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
According to the criminal complaint, Dugan and another judge confronted the arrest team in the courtroom hallway and she had a “confrontational, angry demeanor.” After the deportation officer told her he had an administrative warrant to make an arrest, Dugan said he needed a judicial warrant and ordered them to report to the chief judge’s office, the complaint showed.
After the federal agents left, Dugan escorted Flores-Ruiz and his lawyer through a jury door, the government alleged.
In their court filing, Dugan’s lawyers cited legal precedent for judicial immunity, which they argued was similar to the legal claim by Trump in his federal criminal cases, which were dismissed. Last year, the Supreme Court
“Even if (contrary to what the trial evidence would show) Judge Dugan took the actions the complaint alleges, these plainly were judicial acts for which she has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution,” her lawyers argued. “Judges are empowered to maintain control over their courtrooms specifically and the courthouse generally.”
Read More:
The case is US v. Dugan,
(Updates with details from court filing.)
--With assistance from
To contact the reporter on this story:
To contact the editors responsible for this story:
Elizabeth Wasserman, Peter Blumberg
© 2025 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Used with permission.
Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:
Learn About Bloomberg Law
AI-powered legal analytics, workflow tools and premium legal & business news.
Already a subscriber?
Log in to keep reading or access research tools.