When a sitting Wisconsin judge is indicted for allegedly helping an illegal immigrant escape the law, you have to ask: are we even pretending to have a border anymore, or is the new national pastime helping criminals dodge ICE while law-abiding citizens foot the bill?
At a Glance
- Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan faces federal indictment for allegedly assisting an illegal immigrant evade ICE agents inside a courthouse.
- A federal magistrate has recommended denying Dugan’s motion to dismiss, stating judicial immunity does not protect judges from criminal charges.
- The incident was captured on security cameras and has reignited national debate over immigration enforcement and judicial accountability.
- Dugan’s trial is on hold pending a final ruling on her motion to dismiss; she has been relieved of her duties by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Federal Indictment Exposes the Rot: When Judges Shield Lawbreakers
Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan, a name most Wisconsinites had probably never heard until now, has become the face of what happens when the bench turns into a sanctuary for illegal immigrants. According to a federal indictment, Judge Dugan allegedly took it upon herself to help Eduardo Flores-Ruiz—an undocumented repeat offender—slip out the courthouse back door to avoid arrest by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The whole escape act was recorded on courthouse security cameras, leaving no room for “misunderstandings” or “miscommunications.” If you thought the job of a judge was to uphold the law, not undermine it, think again.
The timeline is as infuriating as it is predictable: April 18, 2025, Dugan allegedly leads Flores-Ruiz, who’d already been deported once and was back facing battery charges, through a juror’s exit. The FBI arrested her a week later. By May, a federal grand jury indicted her for obstructing a federal proceeding and concealing a person to prevent arrest. The defense? Judicial immunity. Because apparently, “I was just doing my job” now covers active obstruction of federal agents. The Wisconsin Supreme Court, at least, had the sense to relieve her of her judicial duties while the case proceeds. That’s cold comfort when you consider the broader message this sends to those charged with enforcing our laws.
Judicial Immunity: Shield or Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card?
Judge Dugan’s legal team wasted no time spinning the indictment as an unconstitutional overreach—a threat to judicial independence and the separation of powers. Their argument boils down to this: if a judge does anything while wearing the robe, it’s untouchable. But federal prosecutors aren’t buying it. The Department of Justice, backed by an FBI investigation and damning video evidence, calls Dugan’s actions “unilateral, non-judicial, and unofficial”—in other words, she wasn’t acting as a judge, she was acting as an accomplice. Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph just issued a recommendation to deny Dugan’s motion to dismiss, making it clear: judicial immunity protects against civil lawsuits for official acts, not criminal prosecution for breaking the law. The final call is now with U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, but the writing’s on the wall: no one is above the law, not even those in black robes.
The left is already clutching their pearls, warning that prosecuting judges for “courtroom decisions” will chill judicial independence. Here’s a thought: maybe if judges stopped moonlighting as getaway drivers for criminal aliens, we wouldn’t need to have this conversation.
A Nation of Laws or a Nation of Sanctuary Courthouses?
This case lands at the heart of America’s raging debate over immigration enforcement, state-federal cooperation, and the role of local officials who fancy themselves above inconvenient federal statutes. The Dugan indictment comes at a time when border security is actually working—historic lows in illegal crossings prove what happens when federal law is enforced vigorously. Yet, as long as judges and local officials believe they can thumb their noses at ICE agents and federal law, the system remains fundamentally broken. The Dugan case could set a national precedent: if she walks, expect every activist judge in a sanctuary city to take the law into their own hands. If the law prevails, maybe—just maybe—we’ll see a return to sanity, where public officials are held accountable for aiding and abetting lawbreakers.
Meanwhile, the taxpayer—already stretched thin by inflation, government overreach, and an endless stream of benefits for those here illegally—watches as their institutions are hijacked by radical agendas. Judicial immunity was never meant to be a cloak for criminality. The real question is whether the court will defend the Constitution or gut it in the name of woke politics.
