When word broke on Friday about the arrest of a sitting Wisconsin state court judge, Hannah Dugan, on charges of obstructing the arrest of an illegal immigrant, my immediate reaction on Bluesky was “Whoa. Feels like massive overreaching.”
Having now reviewed the charging documents and some accounts of colleagues, my off-the-cuff assessment stands. The arrest of Judge Dugan was a long stretch that is hard to square with the principles of federal prosecution which govern the decision whether to charge every federal case.
A perusal of the facts, as laid out in the affidavit of an FBI agent accompanying the criminal complaint, easily isolates the weak spot in the case.
The six-agent team that had gathered in Milwaukee County Circuit Court to arrest Eduardo Flores Ruiz, who was appearing in Judge Dugan's courtroom on domestic violence charges, had not worked out a protocol for Ruiz's arrest. Dugan was angry when she learned of their presence and demanded that they speak with the chief judge. She then returned to her courtroom, adjourned Ruiz’s case, and directed him to leave through the jury door.
Although the key detail is obfuscated in the FBI affidavit, the jury door led directly back to the same public hallway, where one agent was waiting as Ruiz and his counsel emerged. (The others were conferring with the Chief Judge.) The agent followed Ruiz and his lawyer and went down the elevator with them. Other agents joined them and sought to arrest Ruiz in front of the courthouse. Ruiz ran and was arrested after a foot chase lasting the length of the courthouse.
For those wanting more facts, this long Twitter thread by Ann Jacobs of the Wisconsin Election Commission dissects the allegations and highlights the many weak aspects of the case.
Based principally on these details, the FBI has charged Dugan with two federal crimes: harboring or concealing Ruiz so as to prevent his discovery and arrest (18 U.S.C. §1071) and “corruptly obstructing or impeding the due and proper administration of law,” i.e., Ruiz’s deportation.
The challenge for the feds will be proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Dugan intended to prevent Ruiz's arrest. It seems at least equally plausible that Dugan wanted to avoid any scene in or in front of her courtroom. The idea that Judge Dugan was seeking to prevent Ruiz’s arrest doesn’t add up. She directed Ruiz to leave through another door but, as she well knew, into the public hallway where the agents were waiting. That's hardly consistent with a desire to prevent his arrest. And of course, he was arrested in short order.
It's very unlikely that a Wisconsin jury is going to view this case sympathetically in the first instance. But if Dugan testifies and proffers another explanation, it's hard to see how a jury convicts her beyond a reasonable doubt. Indeed, if the case goes to trial, the feds will be at genuine risk of losing, ignominiously, on a Rule 29 motion based on a finding from the judge that no reasonable jury could find that the government proved intent beyond a reasonable doubt.
In any event, here's my prediction that Judge Dugan will not be convicted on these charges.
It's also worth noting the likely impact of the case. Ruiz was in court to answer serious charges of domestic abuse, which seem to be his only brush with the law since he entered the country without authorization. Given the widespread publicity, we have to expect that other people here illegally will be far less likely to risk arrest on federal immigration charges by showing up for court. That's a far greater cost to public safety than the short chase that Attorney General Bondi emphasized.
(I also want to note this was not the only immigration-based story unfolding over the weekend. We saw two particularly cruel instances of administration officials apprehending two different women who were making their scheduled reporting visits to the ICE office, wreaking havoc on their families.)
So the case is fairly weak, and the FBI overreached. It's not the first time that's happened, and it's not unique to the Trump administration. Of far greater concern is the unprofessional and corrupt political exploitation of the charges by FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi.
Patel’s social media post trumpeting the arrest, which he quickly deleted, was the least of it. His gross abuse of discretion began with the decision to physically arrest and handcuff Judge Dugan at the courthouse as she was arriving for work Friday. A defendant like Judge Dugan should have been permitted, and 999 times out of 1000 would have been permitted, to surrender voluntarily after receiving a summons. FBI and DOJ rules give guidance for when to physically arrest a charged defendant – e.g., that the defendant is a flight risk, or a danger to the community, or is likely to destroy evidence, or has an extensive criminal history. Every one of the factors points to self-surrender rather than arrest, much less in sensational fashion at the courthouse as she arrived for work.
Treating Judge Dugan like a violent, dangerous criminal was obviously designed to score broader political points about the Administration’s wholesale deportations initiative. Patel decided to humiliate Judge Dugan for a sensational headline and to strike fear into the hearts of other judges. That not only contravened DOJ guidelines; it was bush and cowboyish.
Which brings us to Attorney General Bondi and her deeply embarrassing and unlawful exploitation of the arrest. Within hours of the episode, Bondi took to the airwaves of Fox News, where she cheerfully trashed Judge Dugan. She presented the allegations in the complaint as fact and added her own editorial denigrations. She said of the judge, “shame on her,” and of the charges, “you can’t make this up.” She continued, “we could not believe that a judge really did that,” and “what has happened to the judiciary is beyond me,” finally asserting that Judge Dugan is “deranged.”
Since she came to office, Bondi has had a consistent tin ear and an abhorrent proclivity to pepper her every public statement with blandishments of Trump and a suggestion that DOJ attorneys work for him personally, rather than the public.
It is a fundamental constitutional requirement in this country that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty, and that the government must prove all elements of a criminal charge beyond a reasonable doubt. It is probably the single most important rule that a prosecutor must live by.
Accordingly, the U.S. Attorney’s Manual, the operating bible for federal prosecutors, requires strict adherence to that command. That includes forbidding prosecutors from offering opinions on a defendant’s guilt, supplying their own character assessments, or making any statement that could influence the outcome of a trial at the charging stage.
It is drummed into the head of every federal prosecutor that in announcing the filing of charges, you stick to the four corners of the charging document. Moreover, you emphasize that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty, a statement that appears routinely in every press release announcing an indictment.
Bondi’s diatribe transgressed all of these guidelines and more. For any prosecutor, state or federal, Bondi’s trashing of a just-charged defendant was breathtaking. In this and multiple other instances in her short tenure – her speech introducing the President at the DOJ particularly jumps to my mind – she has appalled DOJ veterans of all stripes and eras. She is a disgrace to her office.
Harry Litman is a former United States Attorney and the executive producer and host of theTalking Feds podcast. He has taught law at UCLA, Berkeley, and Georgetown and served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Clinton Administration. Please consider subscribing toTalking Feds on Substack.
Reprinted with permission from Substack.
