Some Thoughts on the Arrest of Judge Hannah Dugan
On April 18, six law enforcement officers — one ICE officer, one CBP officer, two FBI agents, and two DEA agents; they were supported by an unknown number of surveillance personnel — showed up outside the courtroom of Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz.
Flores-Ruiz was charged on March 18 with three counts of domestic battery, and was due to appear for a pre-trial hearing.
Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican national, reportedly had been deported once before and one day earlier, “an authorized immigration official” had attested an administrative warrant — but not a judicial warrant — authorizing Flores-Ruiz’s arrest.
After Judge Dugan interacted with the arresting officers and, upon learning that they only had an administrative warrant and after telling them they needed a judicial warrant, she directed them to go meet with the Chief Judge (who wasn’t at the courthouse, but who spoke with the ICE officer on the phone). Then, Judge Dugan apparently adjourned Flores-Ruiz’ scheduled hearing and directed him and his attorney to leave via the jury door.
Defense counsel and Flores-Ruiz then walked toward each other and toward the public courtroom exit. The courtroom deputy then saw Judge DUGAN get up and heard Judge DUGAN say something like “Wait, come with me.”
Flores-Ruiz appears to have gone, via back hallways, to the same sixth floor public hallway via which he had entered the court room. According the complaint, both DEA officers saw Flores-Ruiz in the public hallway before he entered the elevator.
After leaving the Chief Judge’s vestibule and returning to the public hallway, DEA Agent A reported that Flores-Ruiz and his attorney were in the public hallway. DEA Agent B also observed Flores-Ruiz and his attorney in the hallway near Courtroom 615 and noted that FloresRuiz was looking around the hallway. From different vantage points, both agents observed Flores-Ruiz and his counsel walk briskly towards the elevator bank on the south end of the sixth floor.
Rather than arresting Flores-Ruiz, whom the officers knew was unarmed, there on the sixth floor, one of them rode down the elevator with him and his attorney and the other alerted the other officers. Four of them convened outside of the courthouse and chased him down the street and arrested him, just 22 minutes after he entered Judge Dugan’s courtroom at 8:43.
Having received the above-referenced information from DEA Agent A, other members of the arrest team scrambled to locate Flores-Ruiz and arrest him. DEA Agent B and FBI Agents A and B took another elevator down to one of the bottom floors of the courthouse and quickly exited the building onto 9th Street. After DEA Agent A notified the team that Flores-Ruiz was in the front of the courthouse near the flagpole, the agents ran towards the front of the courthouse. FBI Agent B and DEA Agent A approached Flores-Ruiz and identified themselves as law enforcement. Flores-Ruiz turned around and sprinted down the street. A foot chase ensued. The agents pursued Flores-Ruiz for the entire length of the courthouse and ultimately apprehended him near the intersection of W. State Street and 10th Street. Flores-Ruiz was handcuffed and detained. Around 9:05 a.m., or approximately 22 minutes after the arrest team first spotted FloresRuiz on the sixth floor of the courthouse, FBI Agent A communicated to the surveillance team that Flores-Ruiz had been arrested.
In a criminal complaint, the government charged Judge Dugan with 18 USC 1505, obstruction of a proceeding, and 18 USC 1071, concealing a person from arrest. [docket] The FBI arrested Judge Dugan at the courthouse on Friday amid a deliberate media frenzy, up to and including the FBI Director posting a picture of Judge Dugan’s arrest in violation of DOJ guidelines designed to prevent prejudice.
DOJ personnel should not encourage or assist news media in photographing or televising a person held in custody. DOJ personnel should not voluntarily disclose a photograph of a defendant unless it serves a law enforcement function or unless the photograph is already part of the public record in the case.
Both Pam Bondi and Stephen Miller also made comments that arguably violate rules prohibiting comments that prejudice a proceeding (remember that Judge Dale Ho already found that Pam Bondi’s public comments about the Eric Adams case likely violated local rules).
The arrest has rightly been viewed as an attempt, at a time when Trump and his minions are already making wildly inappropriate attacks on judges, to bully the judiciary.
The criminal charges
There has been a lot of blather about the strength or weakness of the criminal charges. Much of that is, in my opinion, premature, and premature precisely because FBI chose to arrest Dugan on a criminal complaint.
The elements of offense for 18 USC 1505 require the government prove:
- Existence of an Investigative Proceeding: There is, or was, an ongoing proceeding, inquiry, or investigation before a federal department, agency, or any committee of Congress.
- Defendant’s Knowledge: You were aware of the pending proceeding.
- Obstructive Action: You engaged in one or more of the obstructive actions outlined in the statute, such as withholding or falsifying documents or using threats or force and
- Corrupt Intent: You did so with corrupt intent, meaning the actions were taken with a wrongful purpose to disrupt, impede, or influence the proceeding. This ‘corrupt intent’ refers to a deliberate and dishonest motive to interfere with the investigation or proceeding rather than a legitimate or lawful purpose.
The elements of offense for 18 USC 1071 require the government prove:
- a federal warrant had been issued for the person’s arrest;
- the person concealing them knew that a warrant was issued;
- the person actually concealed the fugitive from law enforcement;
- the person acted with intent to prevent fugitive’s discovery or arrest.
For obstruction, it will be contested whether an immigration removal counts as an investigative proceeding. For concealment, it will be contested whether the administrative warrant qualifies, and whether directing Flores-Ruiz via a back hallway to the very same public hallway where the officers had planned to arrest him and had a chance to arrest him amounts to concealment.
Both charges will pivot on Judge Dugan’s intent: whether she had corrupt intent and the intent of helping him evade arrest entirely, or whether she wanted to protect the sanctity of her own courtroom.
Key to her intent is her belief, which she made clear to the officers, that they needed a judicial warrant.
Judge DUGAN asked if Deportation Officer A had a judicial warrant, and Deportation Officer A responded, “No, I have an administrative warrant.” Judge DUGAN stated that Deportation Officer A needed a judicial warrant. Deportation Officer A told Judge DUGAN that Deportation Officer A was in a public space and had a valid immigration warrant. Judge DUGAN asked to see the administrative warrant and Deportation Officer A offered to show it to her. Judge DUGAN then demanded that Deportation Officer A speak with the Chief Judge. Judge DUGAN then had a similar interaction with FBI Agent B and CBP Officer A. After finding out that they were not present for a court appearance and that they were with ICE, Judge DUGAN ordered them to report to the Chief Judge’s office.
Administrative warrants don’t mandate assistance.
It may also matter that, by description, she didn’t actually look at the administrative warrant, because it might matter if she knew whether Flores-Ruiz had been deported before. In a report published before the arrest, Dugan is quoted as stating that “a warrant was not presented in the hallway on the 6th floor,” and by description, she was not shown one.
Thus far, the complaint seems to want to suggest that Dugan had corrupt intent because she was angry.
DUGAN became visibly angry, commented that the situation was “absurd,” left the bench
Witnesses uniformly reported that Judge DUGAN was visibly upset and had a confrontational, angry demeanor.
Judge DUGAN appeared visibly angry and was walking quickly
But judges get angry for lots of reasons, including that someone showed up outside her courtroom to surprise someone with business in it.
The affidavit also makes much of the fact that, after exiting the non-public hallway, Flores-Ruiz and his attorney walked to the elevators furthest away from Judge Dugan’s courtroom.
I am familiar with the layout of the sixth floor of the courthouse and know that the south elevators are not the closest elevators to Courtroom 615, and therefore it appears that Flores-Ruiz and his counsel elected not to use the closest elevator bank to Courtroom 615.
It’s entirely unclear why this would be suspicious in any case, because the affidavit suggests that Dugan thought all the officers were in the Chief Judge’s chambers; walking to the further elevators increased the chance they’d encounter the officers in the hallway. But as the Chair of the WI Election Commission Ann Jacobs noted in a long thread, there’s a completely innocent explanation for this: that Flores-Ruiz and his attorney were headed to the street, not the parking garage.
Here’s why this is absurd – there are 2 banks of elevators in the courthouse: 1 goes to the ground floor, and 1 goes to the 9th street exit which is where the parking structure is. In fact, there are even SIGNS telling you which bank of elevator goes where.
So – yes – you sometimes walk past one set of elevators so you can get where you want to go. If you are not going to the parking structure (which most people are), you take the other set of elevators because they are less crowded.
Suspicious? No – literally something hundreds of people do daily in the courthouse. This attempt to make it into something is just dumb (especially since they claim to be familiar with the elevators – clearly not).
The biggest problem with these charges is that, by charging this via criminal complaint rather than grand jury, the government has not probed several issues relating to intent before charging Judge Dugan.
The witnesses cited in the complaint include the six officers, Dugan’s courtroom deputy, two other lawyers present in the courtroom that day (an Assistant DA and a different defendant’s attorney), a Victim Specialist working with Flores-Ruiz’ alleged victims, along with the FBI officer affiant.
The most incriminating thing in the affidavit comes from the deputy.
These events were also unusual for two reasons. First, the courtroom deputy had previously heard Judge DUGAN direct people not to sit in the jury box because it was exclusively for the jury’s use. Second, according to the courtroom deputy, only deputies, juries, court staff, and in-custody defendants being escorted by deputies used the back jury door. Defense attorneys and defendants who were not in custody never used the jury door.
The deputy was clearly quite concerned about being implicated and actually alerted the officers that Judge Dugan was “pushing” Flores-Ruiz’ case.
Judge DUGAN’s courtroom deputy then approached the remaining arrest team members and stated that the courtroom deputy was not the one who had notified Judge DUGAN about their arrest plans. The courtroom deputy also made a comment about Judge DUGAN “pushing” Flores-Ruiz’s case through, which the arrest team interpreted to mean that Judge DUGAN was attempting to expedite Flores-Ruiz’s hearing.
The officers seem to have misinterpreted the comment; rather than expediting the hearing, it appears Judge Dugan instead adjourned the hearing.
But there are several key witnesses that have not been interviewed (or if they have, their testimony is not mentioned in the complaint): It appears the FBI didn’t ask Flores-Ruiz’ attorney and Flores-Ruiz himself about whether Judge Dugan alerted them that ICE was there to arrest him (and some of their behavior is inconsistent with having any warning). They don’t even know whether Flores-Ruiz’ attorney drove to the courthouse; if not, she would know well to take the elevator that went to street level.
Nor does the affidavit note any interview with the Chief Judge. His testimony would be critical for several reasons. First, the complaint describes that the Chief Judge told the ICE officer he was working on a policy about ICE presence in the courthouse but had not yet completed it.
During their conversation, the Chief Judge stated he was working on a policy which would dictate locations within the courthouse where ICE could safely conduct enforcement actions. The Chief Judge emphasized that such actions should not take place in courtrooms or other private locations within the building. Deportation Officer A asked about whether enforcement actions could take place in the hallway. The Chief Judge indicated that hallways are public areas. When the Chief Judge expressed interest in talking to ICE ERO management about this policy, Deportation Officer A provided him with contact information for ICE ERO’s Assistant Field Office Director.
If the Chief Judge had not yet crafted a policy, then the government can’t cite it regarding what Judge Dugan should have done, and indeed her instruction to go to his office may have been consistent with the unsettled policy. There’s another judge who interacted with the officers who may also attest to the uncertainty about what to do in this situation.
That the Chief Judge had not yet spoken to ICE is important because the affiant includes a limitation ICE had adopted on their own arrests: to target defendants but not witnesses.
the Milwaukee ICE ERO Task Force was focusing its resources on apprehending charged defendants making appearances in criminal cases – and not arresting victims, witnesses, or individuals appearing for matters in family or civil court.
But if the Chief Judge had not yet spoken to ICE, then neither he nor Dugan could be expected to know that. Judges have very well-founded concerns about the way ICE arrests at courthouses can chill access to justice for everyone (including defendants); but the concern about witnesses and victims is particularly acute.
And while the Chief Judge told the ICE officer that they could make arrests in hallways, there’s no evidence in the record that the Chief Judge had told Judge Dugan that. He certainly didn’t tell her that after the conversation as described. He couldn’t have! That’s because the ICE officer was still on the phone with the Chief Judge when the other officers arrested Flores-Ruiz.
Deportation Officer A and CBP Officer A were notified that Flores-Ruiz was in custody while they were still inside the courthouse speaking with the Chief Judge on the phone.
There are reasons why DOJ shouldn’t involve the other judges in this case. But both the Chief Judge and the other one involved that day may provide exculpatory evidence about Judge Dugan’s actions and intent.
Without more, Judge Dugan has a number of strong defenses to these charges. DOJ might one day get more incriminating evidence about Dugan’s intent, but they present zero real evidence of it here and her comment about the administrative warrant is exculpatory.
Trump picks up where he left off
This is not, as many people claimed, unprecedented. In fact, there’s a very clear precedent: MA state judge Shelly Joseph, who was indicted, along with her Deputy, in 2019 for allegedly helping a defendant escape ICE arrest by conspiring with her Deputy and the migrant’s defense attorney to let him out the back of the courthouse via a holding cell. [docket] Adam Klasfeld also wrote about this precedent at his new site.
There are number of key differences though, at least thus far.
The most important differences are that Judge Joseph allegedly helped the migrant before her to leave the courthouse, via non-public doorway, entirely; she allegedly turned off the courtroom recording during which the defense attorney asked for help (which was presented as evidence of corrupt intent) and her deputy allegedly lied to the grand jury; the defendant evaded arrest entirely. That was charged as a conspiracy after getting the defense attorney to testify, with immunity, against the judge.
Update: I should add a big difference between Joseph and Dugan. In the former case, the government investigated for a year — from April 2018 to April 2019 — before they charged Joseph and her deputy (during which time they flipped the defense attorney whose idea this was). In this case, FBI investigated for a week.
That is, while Judge Joseph had a number of strong defenses (and contested some of the claims laid out in the indictment), the case against her included allegations that got to corrupt intent that do not — yet, anyway — exist in the case against Judge Dugan.
The precedent matters for legal reasons. A number of the issues that would be argued here — such as any immunity due to Judge Joseph, or the applicability of 18 USC 1505 to an immigration arrest — were not resolved and likely would not be here, before trial and appeal.
But the most important precedent is the way in which the first Trump Administration — including then Acting ICE Director Tom Homan and current Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons — wanted to use Joseph’s case to intimidate judges and foster a big media frenzy. Joseph’s case was dismissed in 2022 after she used some FOIAed documents to show the media frenzy the White House deliberated stoked and asked (for the third time) for full discovery on it, including on how Lyons’ incessant media appearances affected the ICE officers involved in the case.
But even before she got that FOIAed evidence, she argued that Lyons’ incessant attacks on judges biased ICE in this matter.
That is, the campaign against judges — Tom Homan’s campaign, Todd Lyons’ campaign (including his recent comment where he said he wanted to make deportations work like Amazon Prime), a White House occupied by Stephen Miller’s campaign — are already a matter of judicial record. And this time around, DOJ didn’t even bother convening a grand jury to find out whether there’s any evidence that Judge Dugan had corrupt intent before arresting her at the courthouse and ginning up an even bigger media storm about it.
Maybe they’ll find it as they move to indict her. Or maybe this case will blow up in spectacular fashion.
But until they actually look for evidence of corrupt intent, this is a media campaign against the judiciary, not a criminal prosecution.
Indeed, the media campaign — the comments from top Trump officials, some that don’t even reflect the official record — may have already tainted the prosecution. The media campaign is bound to be a central matter as Dugan mounts a defense.
The fight for rule of law
The fact that so few people know of the case against Judge Joseph is telling. Many just pointed to the arrest and proclaimed that Trump had achieved some new level of abuse.
Like so much else, including his use of the legal system to attack his adversaries, there’s little truly new here.
He did all this in the first term and yet neither the Biden or Harris campaigns nor millions of others opposing Trump made this or his past abuses a sustained focus of an anti-Trump campaign, not even in the context of his attacks on judges presiding over cases against him. As I’ve argued, Trump’s platform — the way he convinced a bunch of disaffected people to vote for him — was to claim he was a victim of an unfair legal system, rather than someone duly prosecuted under it, rather than the guy who weaponized it to get electoral advantage.
In the wake of Dugan’s arrest, by contrast, many people did far more than staring, stupefied, at Trump’s latest abuse. Many officials, both local and national Democrats, have issued statements condemning at least the manner of the arrest. Most contextualized this arrest with mention of Trump (and Stephen Miller’s) direct attacks on and defiance of judges, up to and including the Trump-packed Supreme Court. Hundreds of people protested outside the federal courthouse.
Something has happened, somewhat unmentioned, since Trump opponents have started to speak out against Trump’s abusive immigration policies. In the process of defending people like Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who as some noxious Democratic operative sniffed is not a “poster child” for due process, Trump’s opponents have more aggressively defended just that: due process, independent courts, and rule of law.
If Abrego Garcia can be sent to Nayib Bukele’s concentration camp in error, anyone can. If a US citizen toddler can be deported even as one of the Trumpiest judges fights to give her due process, Trump’s deportation campaign has illustrated the import of independent judges testing his transparently false claims.
It may be that defending the import of rule of law has helped to reverse the popularity of Trump’s deportation campaign.
Whether it is or not though, the opposition to Trump has started defending rule of law as such, above and beyond the more charismatic targets of it. It has started defending the rule of law as an important protection for all citizens.
I hope to return to this, particularly as people entertain approaches — to think in terms of indictments for Trump — that failed over and over again in the past. I strongly believe that what needs to happen — what didn’t happen, when Trump was busy undermining the legitimacy of the cases against him during the Biden Administration — is to promote the import of rule of law as such.
As real mobilization happens in response to Trump’s attacks on rule of law, let’s keep in mind that that is something worth defending in its own right.
Update: Now ICE is threatening to charge two people who asked three officers in plainclothes (one wearing a balaclava) to show a warrant. The complaint against Judge Dugin makes much of the fact that the six officers were in plainclothes, as if that helps.
The agents were generally dressed in plain clothes and intended to effectuate the arrest in as low-key and safe of a manner as possible.
You’re the best, Marcy.
Yes! I join the other accolades, Marcy. I really admire how you can get so deep into the details, but still never lose sight of the big picture.
Time and again she shows what investigative journalism is and how lacking legacy media is in dealing with maga/trumpism
Steel-trap mind. Always on the mark.
You think Marcy is good here!
Just listen to her being interviewed every Friday on the Nicole Sandler show.
It’s free and well worth the listen
https://nicolesandler.com/4-18-25/
[Welcome to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We adopted this minimum standard to support community security. Because your username is too short and common (there are quite a few Bruces here), your username will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first known comment until you have a new compliant username. /~Rayne]
You’re new here so perhaps you’ve missed a couple things in this community:
• Marcy posts Fridays with emptywheel every Friday featuring her discussion with Nicole Sandler, ex: https://www.emptywheel.net/2025/04/25/fridays-with-nicole-sandler-54/;
• harpie is one of our longest-tenured community members and knows well about the Fridays with emptywheel podcasts as do most of our regulars.
Excellent writeup!
Excellent post EW, thanks. One thing about this sentence though, “It has started defending the rule of law as an important protection for all citizens.”. I would argue that the pushback includes the applicability of the rule of law to all persons within the U.S., not just citizens.
Pointing out that the lawlessness of the Trump regime extends to citizens helps people not currently engaged understand what is at risk more broadly, but those out protesting are very clear on defending the rule of law as it applies to everyone.
Something I was reading recently maintained that the writers of the Constitution recognized the class of Citizens but in requiring due process referred to the class of Persons (or People, I forget which), suggesting strongly that the shelter of due process was offered to and intended for anyone in the country, not just citizens.
Anecdotally…at a backyard bbq a week ago and in a conversation with a friend who is not really political at all – in the sense we would ever talk about it. A war vet, current pilot with a big airline, probably fairly conservative by left coast standards. But again, he never talks about it so wild ass guess. But he brought up due process maybe three times in talking about current events. Seems pretty obvious but this struck me as important. If he’s talking to me about it he’s talking to other people. So there is something to this focus on the rule of law being there for the taking to defend and find support from other corners of the political spectrum – if the left wants it.
That is interesting.
The post I’ve got started on this includes Xitter screen caps from a number of conservative lawyers pushing back on Stephen Miller, if I ever finish it.
ooh, I wanna read that!
I have an attorney friend in New England, always horribly conservative, spending what seems to be hours on Facebook defending Abrego Garcia’s right to due process, methodically and fairly confronting our mutual friends. He keeps saying the same thing, that when due diligence dies for one, all are right behind. It’s fascinating to watch the replies, which are either closed minded or genuinely surprised as to what due process means
This is a great thorough analysis the likes of which I have not yet seen elsewhere. Thank you Marcy.
To what extent will the arresting crew (and those issuing instructions) be subject to discovery? Could be interesting.
All should be, but DOJ will try to delay it until trial. Where she’ll struggle is to get comms between them and others at ICE and FBI.
Exec priv claim?
No. They’ll say it’s Jencks (comments from a witness about a case; they’ll probably try to limit it to the agents who testify). It seems Dugan’s comments with several of the officers was less cut-and-dry than with the one cited.
Regarding Rule of Law:
Judge Dugan, like all judges everywhere, had a trial to run. If Flores-Ruiz is deported, that trial goes away. Flores-Ruiz’ victims will not have their day in court. He will serve no time. He will pay them no restitution. They would have no proof that a crime was even committed because no trial happened.
Everyone assumes Dugan was trying to protect Flores-Ruiz, but it’s just as likely she was trying to protect her trial and the court system in general. Trump and ICE are like The Cat in the Hat, destroying ordinary democracy while pretending to save it. If we’re going to stand on rule of law and save ourselves by educating the public about it, we need to be clear that indiscriminate federal power destroys regular democracy.
“Everyone assumes Dugan was trying to protect Flores-Ruiz”
This entire post was about Dugan’s concerns about the rule of law and due process, not simply protecting Flores-Ruiz. Please read the post more carefully before commenting.
Welcome to emptywheel.
I would also like to know whether or not it is proper to remove the defendant from prosecution for immigration reasons.
I think that if Flores-Ruiz had tried to remove himself from the US, or even to move too far from the court, he would have been in violation, and law enforcement would have tried to prevent it.
Had Flores-Ruiz left the US, US authorities might have sought his return through extradition.
This question is part of the whole issue of protecting the courtroom and courthouse, but it’s a bit different from the ones discussed in the post, and I have not seen it addressed anywhere yet.
[Welcome to emptywheel. Please choose and use a UNIQUE username with a minimum of 8 letters. We adopted this minimum standard to support community security. Because your username is too common — another community member has already used the name “Mike O’Donnell” — your username will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first known comment until you have a new compliant username. /~Rayne]
I agree with this article.
What we are watching looks to me like the old western movies where someone is lynched by an angry mob without any due process.
Due process is hard work and does not give immediate satisfaction, but to some degree prevents terrible errors.
The greatest beneficiary of due process in US history, is probably Trump.
Due process and sympathetic judges.
In Cannon’s cases, it was undue process.
Dupe Process
I can’t help thinking that the lawful status quo desired by the “elite” part of the populace ( the wealthy, the privileged ) was the wont behind the lack of pushback the first time this happened. Who dares to speak up for equal treatment under the law…I wonder.
Agreed. Also, the case with Judge Joseph was a little better run/conceived in that the Trump Administration spent more time doing the necessary background work and following the usual forms for a criminal investigation. Short and sweet, they did a better job of faking due process than the Judge Dugan case.
>Administrative warrants don’t mandate assistance.
Some expanded discussion of this would be really helpful.
Seems like a key crux?
Thanks
Took me all of three minutes to find a number of articles on the difference between the two sorts of “warrant.” The internet is your pal. Link below is to a website offering advice to new Americans.
https://www.beluminus.org/warrants/
Good reference for background, but I suspect from the way the agent was pushing Judge Dugan (who would know these differences, and said so) that there is an internal DoJ memo or an executive order signed by Convict-1 / Krasnov to bypass these differences (whether the ‘sate of emergency, AEA, or something in one of the immigration EOs).
I think Marcy posted something on bluesky about Pam Bondi’s office having issued such a memo to the officers – some of them apparently quite newly hired – charged with carrying out the arrests, that Venezuelans being taken into custody did not need to be afforded any due process. But I scanned through and couldn’t find the post.
Tip Top, Marcy :) You give me the foundation for my understanding for what happened, and the details for argumentation against my fam members who’ve gone down the wrong road.
Yes, exactly. And Dr Wheeler has been doing this since Bush (or before)!!
~ 8:00 AM [TZ?] Judge Dugan is arrested
10:11 AM PATEL Xeets:
Before 10:51 AM PATEL has deleted his Xeet
11:05 AM BONDI Xeets [and then Rapid Response 47 ReXeets]:
~12:26 PM PATEL ReXeets the exact same language as earlier
1:00 PM BONDI on Fox [Telling DOJfc! story]
I suspect we’ll find DOJ’s press person (or FBI’s) approved the initial statements after the fact. It will likely be an issue of both Dugan and DOJ IG’s focus (DOJ IG found several instances where Barr’s DOJ broke these rules).
But Bondi’s comments are so far outside the pale that I expect Dugan to move for a gag on her pretty quickly.
That’s what Anna Bower was getting at, too, re: the first part of that Fox interview. [I didn’t link to VIDEO of it above]
https://bsky.app/profile/annabower.bsky.social/post/3lnotvblz3222
April 25, 2025 at 11:58 PM
I wonder whether Patel, Bondi and Homan’s comments constitute a liability for Dugan to pursue a defamation case. Even within the milieu of official immunity, it was already clear from the complaint (and will be more clear when Dugan extracts the raw reports) that all three had read the reports from their agents and knew there was no grounds to arrest Dugan. Or the reports were falsified to generate a reaction (ot plausible deniability)
That a public arrest was chosen meant a message, but Governor Evers can send one too. IANAL, I’m guessing WI has a law about false official statements including allegations of criminal conduct. I’m also guessing that WI also has a legally defined process for arresting judges in active service. Please correct me if I’m off target here.
If Homan, Patel or Bondi get arrested because of a trip wire such as these I wouldn’t shed a tear. It might do them some good to experience the full courtesies of the process they gleefully inflict on others.
Whenever I see Bondi or Patel, they seem to come off sounding like internet trolls in their parent’s basements.
Not at all like the image I had of what leaders of extremely serious law enforcement agencies should act and talk like.
PATEL Xeet here: https://bsky.app/profile/marisakabas.bsky.social/post/3lnnhatvtic2n
BONDI Xeet here: https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lnnnytnarc27
An addition to the TL:
Afternoon DOJfc! posts Statement
Justice Department Announces
Two Cases Involving Judicial Misconduct and Obstruction of Law Enforcement https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-two-cases-involving-judicial-misconduct-and-obstruction-law 4/25/25
Thanks for this great analysis and lots of data points that legacy, and some independent outlets, have been missing.
Your clarity and forthrightness often lifts me up when I feel overwhelmed trying to keep up with all this noxious firehose of deeds.
Thank you for your customarily insightful exposition and analysis.
By way of foot notes
1 You usefully cite to the discussion of S1505 from https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/obstruct-proceedings
But when that article identifies the elements of the offence it understandably for the purpose of that article, truncates it to 2 examples of actions:
“ Obstructive Action: You engaged in one or more of the obstructive actions outlined in the statute, such as withholding or falsifying documents or using threats or force;
and..”
However, the statutorily prohibited actions which DOJ/ICE are likely to to invoke against Judge Dugan are
“ influences, obstructs, or impedes
or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede
the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had”
I mention this in case other readers do not click through to the statute.
2 To emphasise further a point which is implicit in the exposition:
“public areas” of the court building are not unambiguously public.
Access of the public “to such buildings” is controlled “through secure checkpoints” which is why ICE find them expedient to their purposes as laid out in the complaint at para 10.
Whom may be arrested, in what parts of the precincts of court buildings, on what grounds, and by what sufficient authorisations, is not as obvious as ICE , their cohorts , and cheerleaders attempt to make it appear.
And ICE pushing or overstepping the boundaries of their assumed authority, (especially when using deputised members of other agencies here FBI and DEA), is, shall we say, not unheard of.
The necessity for protocols, is essential, and not mere etiquette. There are real separation of powers issues here (and Marcy quite properly mentioned real world concerns) and access to the courts, in the first instance, is for the courts to protect for themselves, in the exercise of their powers and prerogatives; as such resolution of the questions which arise, do not and should not depend on self denying ordinances of ICE to refrain from arresting: eg witnesses, parties in family law cases, etc.
The use of plainclothed snatch squads, or balaclava-ed goons inside court buildings, diminishes rather than enhances the Rule of Law IMHO, because the Rule of Law is first and foremost about the accountability of the agents of government authorities being identifiable as such and being accountable to law for all their acts.
As mentioned above, I think there’s a non-zero chance one of Flores-Ruiz’ alleged victims (who were present) are undocumented. If so, then Dugan’s interest in getting them away from the courtroom quickly could also reflect their rights (or those of the other dozens of cases before her that day).
Oh indeed.
The real world points you make are absolutely spot on.
All of which are entirely legitimate concerns, going both to Judge Dugan’s defence and what her expectations of a detailed permission protocol should encompass.
Mere permission to ICE to effect arrests is not adequate to cover all the legitimate concerns the judiciary should have about court precincts being preferred places of arrest.
As the reference to the Charlottesville arrests reported in the Daily Progress shows, the methods and processes employed by ICE agents ought to be subject to detailed protocols, both in the grant of permission to effect arrests in the court house, and to every aspect of the execution of any such arrest, because of the impact it has on the Rule of Law.
ICE grandstanding their propensity to swoop in and spirit people away is a matter which should greatly concern the judiciary.
The problem ultimately facing the American citizenry is how to effectively deal with an Administration that has embraced the “easier to beg forgiveness than ask permission” approach but doesn’t beg forgiveness, either. In the face of blatant unrepentant lawlessness, what does a law-abiding citizenry do in response? Especially when the lead actor/aggressor has been granted immunity from the law.
Well citizens should first recognize that lawlessness in purported pursuit of ridding the country of migrants is a threat to their due process rights too. And demand at every opportunity, and every available forum that the lawlessness of government agencies be curbed by the courts.
I join the accolades for Marcy’s post, too, and like the table showing the differences in particular.
My guess about the reason why “they” went after Dugan with a criminal complaint rather than a grand jury indictment is that (1) it let them go after the respective judge in public much faster (a week after the alledged act, compared to a year in the Joseph case), and (2) Bondi et al. weren’t sure about a grand jury really handing down an indictment months from now.
BTW, the case against Joseph and her deputy has a long entry in Wikipedia under the heading United States v. Joseph (2019). As this entry has it, Joseph never was arrested (only her deputy was while she had surrendered; both were released without bail after not-guilty plea).
THanks for reminding me–as updated in the post, it took a full year to indict Judge Joseph (during which time they flipped the defense attorney, whose idea the alleged conspiracy was). As compared to the week here.
I linked one report from earlier in the week (there were at least two). As noted in there, it was already out that the FBI was investigating. It’s possible they interviewed a hostile witness who did not help their case and revealed the investigation. It’s also possible the nutballs that get inside briefings at FBI were given advance notice.
Such a helpful post! Did not know about Judge Joseph.
re Patels’s photo, is that an MS13 tattoo on Dugan’s hand?
/s
From Ann Jacob’s thread (linke above in Marcy’s post):
No wonder they can’t comply with the expected deportation numbers given by Trump. /s
And note, as I observed in the post, they also had a surveillance team present.
That’s a lot of real crime not being enforced.
I seem to have run across the recent doctrine in police training that overwhelming force tends to limit resistance of their targets. So, if that is the case the overkill was intentional.
I appreciate the well-reasoned analysis with several inputs. I do wonder about the warrant status. Is an administrative warrant similar to a traffic ticket (i.e. a notice to appear) as opposed to an arrest warrant that permits immediate removal (after judicial review)? I would expect Pam, Kash, and Tom all know the difference between the types and the powers granted therein which may help Judge Dugan’s defense (or future litigation). Somewhere in the administration will be a document (most likely an EO) that raised the administrative warrant to the level where the ICE agent felt empowered to push like he did. FOIA, please.
I also wonder where Noem was in all of this, it’s not like her to miss a cosplay opportunity against a DFH ‘liberal judge’ to burnish the ‘Jackboot Barbie’ cred.
Here’s something on the differences and limitations between administrative and judicial warrants.
www dot fletc dot gov/ice-administrative-removal-warrants-mp3
The accused had already been arrested for an alleged violent act. I’m of the firm opinion that ICE should stay out of state/local courts and assiduously avoid arresting victims, witnesses, the accused, etc., but I can’t blame them for sending a bunch of people to handle someone who has an alleged history of violence.
That said, once again, ICE shouldn’t be anywhere near a courtroom (unless they’re testifying and won’t be arresting anyone.)
The article is spot on. What occurs to me, and this is probably not an original thought, is that the Trump administration is engaged in a war with Enlightenment principles as the foundation of social order.
Trump is assaulting and has assaulted the principle of a Constitutional restraint on executive power as well as the necessary correlative principle of rule of law. Rule of law underlies among other things open markets and freedom of contract. It was Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations who challenged the inefficiency of mercantilism – in other words tariffs.
Trump is likewise assaulting science, reason, and truth as ordering principles and underpinnings of society. Pre-Enlightenment thinking rejected the notion that truth was a defense to seditious libel because if the bad things you said about the King were true, that was worse than if they were false.
And Trump is likewise challenging the Enlightenment principle that values individual liberty and the precept that ultimate political authority resides in the individual as collectively and democratically expressed.
In almost every instance, if you identify the Enlightenment principle underlying a particular social ordering or construct, Trump is seeking to destroy it.
A few days ago on The Bulwark podcast, Jonathan Rauch described it well as “Patrimonialism”: when the government is run as the personal property and family business of the head of state. I think its an illuminating frame for viewing the current U.S. government (though not an excuse to minimize threats posed by Trump or the sycophants around him).
He does seem to think that the government is his personal property, and that everyone is supposed to cater to his whims.
With Trump, everything is for him or about him. He is the hero in his personal narrative (as we each should be). But most people recognize that others exist, have rights and are affected by actions. Trump is little troubled by such concerns. He, by his definition, is right and anyone to the contrary is wrong, a loser and likely an enemy.
The combination of Amicus12 and Dopefish’s comments get this exactly right!
JD Vance has made this explicitly clear in his 15 April long X post musing malevolently on due process
reported on here
https://www.yahoo.com/news/j-d-vance-thinks-due-174650390.html
Which article also quotes SMiller in a similar vein.
Needless to say the pseudo intellectual pseudo theological Vance seeks to dignify his views by a peculiar interpretation of the Augustinian doctrine “ordo amoris” which got him into a spat with Rory Stewart.
And subsequently Pope Francis in a letter to US Bishops dismissed Vance’s interpretation (without naming Vance) with aplomb.
See
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/23/pope-francis-jd-vance-meeting
I wonder if Francis’ experience with the dirty war was used as inspiration for his response. It’s pretty clear he had no tolerance for tinpot dictators.
And over at Kos, the thinking is that this is another “do an arrest to frighten the rest” move;
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/4/27/2319075/-Kash-Patel-Undermines-His-Big-Case-Against-Wisconsin-Judge
Its all theater. Sometimes for entertainment, sometimes for deception and sometimes for intimidation.
And of course, it really not complete without their targets, the victims, who are not much enjoying their being part of the show.
Voltaire had this to say about the execution of Admiral Byng for failing to releive Minorca (future Admiral Rodney gave the order to fire): Byng’s execution was needed ‘to encourage the others’.
Byng was undercut by the refusal of the Parliament to fully fund the expedition and which underestimated the needed force mix. No cowardice or disaffection was proven, only ‘negligence’ in carrying out the order. However, he was sacrificed to cover for the UK government failures. Barbara Tuchman’s book “First Salute” has the whole story.
All of this is an example of basic mob tactics by Patel and his muse Convict-1 / Krasnov.
Thanks Rugger_9 for the reminding us about “pour encourager les autres”.
“In this country it is found requisite, now and then, to put an admiral to death, in order to encourage the others ….” Candide (1759); Voltaire
That line of Voltaire’s did cross my mind.
As with the Abrego Garcia case, this case promotes the Trump Admin agenda, by purposely confusing and misrepresenting the facts and thumbing its nose at law, all for conservative media to parrot, in order to rile-up the MAGAts against “Liberals” and garner sympathy and conditioning for the nefarious Rwing agenda.
Thank you Dr. Marcy. Extremely disturbing considering ICE (Intimidation and Cruelty Enforcement) is carry out dictator Trump’s abusive and cruel plans everyday.
The comparisons to fascism is horrifying. This past week I saw a documentary on PBS:
Simon Schama: The Holocaust, 80 Years On | Full Documentary
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3dKFy0VW5w)
The pain of history. I cried. Cried of the inhumane treatment of people by the Nazis. Cried having been to Dachau seeing ovens, gallows tree and gas chambers. Cried for a family friend, Greta taken to Auschwitz as a teen under Dr. Mengele, called the “angel of death” survived with his criminal experiments.
“I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation.”
Elie Wiesel
I also saw that on PBS.
NYT Magazine had excellent story about a boy who witnessed the Hungarian pro-Nazi militia murdering Jews and pushing them into the Danube.
The more I learn about the Holocaust the more I realize that it was even worse than we know.
These stories must be told and retold because Holocaust denial is increasing as survivors are dying.
“angel of death” reminds me of book titled “Secretaries of Death: Accounts by Former Prisoners Who Worked in the Gestapo of Auschwitz”.
Here’s a video I made long ago about a prisoner at Auschwitz who worked as a secretary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAio8jsAoRE
Thank you for this thorough treatment.
I had read Ann Jacobs description of the layout of the courthouse and actions or inactions of the ICE Agents.
A plausible explanation for the judge’s actions is that she didn’t want the disruptions to her court and calendar that were likely to happen if 6 plainclothes officers arrested the defendant in the hall way right outside the public doors to her courtroom. If I were about to enter that court room and saw a bunch of people not clearly police taking custody of someone. I would run for cover.
As Marcy explained in her post, an administrative warrant (which is signed by a govt agency, the party in interest), unlike a judicial warrant (signed by a party whose interest is ensuring compliance with the law) does not require compliance. It can be used to make an arrest or seize evidence in public spaces, but not private ones, unless the party consents.
There is a dispute about which areas, if any, of a courthouse are public, which is one reason ICE prefers to make arrests on the street, rather than in the courthouse’s hallway.
As someone who has been in this courthouse many times, I can confirm Ann Jacobs’ description. The complaint is laughable if you are familiar with the court. It has very wide and long hallways, with nothing obstructing the views. The separate door the defendant exited from is probably 50 or less from the main courtroom door. The judge would know that the defendant would have been (and clearly was) easily viewed leaving from that exit.
The rule of law only prevails in a world where rights are acknowledged as universal; the thrust of Trump’s attack is to destroy that concept and turn his enemies into proxies for enemy combatants who can be held uncharged forever in Gitmo-like prisons.
I think Bondi will be relying on the 1798 Alien Enemies Act (AEA) specifically as a corrupt means of justification to deprive people of due process. And now, by extension, it is intentionally being used as rationale to deprive Judge Dugan of due process as well. There’s a screen shot of a relevant section of Bondi’s March 14 memo in Roger Parloff’s comment below:
https://x.com/rparloff/status/1915770978388320351
This is also in the March 14 memo:
“As much as practicable, officers should follow the proactive procedures above—and have an executed warrant of apprehension and removal—before contacting an alien enemy. However, that will not always be realistic or effective in swiftly identifying and removing alien enemies… An officer may encounter a suspected alien enemy in the natural course of the officer’s enforcement activity, such as when apprehending other validated members of Tren de Aragua. Given the dynamic nature of enforcement operations, officers in the field are authorized to apprehend aliens upon a reasonable belief that the alien meets all four requirements to be validated as an alien enemy. This authority includes entering an alien enemy’s residence to make an AEA apprehension where circumstances render it impracticable to first obtain a signed notice and warrant of apprehension and removal.”
We aren’t officially at war with anyone, and it’s Congress who does that. Bondi needs to have her law license revoked.
They still need an indictment, which requires a grand jury to hand down a true bill. They have 30 days from presentment to the court.
2 footnotes
1 Parloff post on bsky for X avoiders
https://bsky.app/profile/rparloff.bsky.social/post/3lnnftfyosc25
2 re
“ …Given the dynamic nature of enforcement operations, officers in the field are authorized to apprehend aliens upon a reasonable belief that the alien meets all four requirements to be validated as an alien enemy. This authority includes entering an alien enemy’s residence to make an AEA apprehension where circumstances render it impracticable to first obtain a signed notice and warrant of apprehension and removal“
SteveVladek opines
https://bsky.app/profile/stevevladeck.bsky.social/post/3lnnfognmus2o
“There’s no Alien Enemies Act exception to the Fourth Amendment.”
The full text of the Bondi AEA memo is here
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25915967-doj-march-14-memo-alien-enemies-act/#document/p1
I am intrigued by your observation
“And now, by extension, it is intentionally being used as rationale to deprive Judge Dugan of due process as well”
Flores is Mexican
The Proclamation and Memo specifically relate to Venezuelans, and Tren de Aragua.
I appreciate that within the Deportation /Rendition litigation there has been some blurring by the US Government, by virtue of designating the El Salvadoran gang MS-13 as a terrorist organisation, which has been used to complicate Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s situation. But I don’t believe they have been added to the Proclamation or the Memo, nor has anyone else.
So I am not sure I understand how the memo is being made part of the rationale against Judge Dugan, except in the exploitation of casual racism amongst the public ie the sense that “all illegals are all enemies”
Of course both
1 the DOJ press release which deals with the Duggan arrest and the arrest of ex magistrate judge Jose Luis Cano (and his wife; which had alleged links to Tren de Aragua) in New Mexico
And 2 Bondi’s verbal comments eliding the two cases, would have the effect of creating precisely that sort of prejudice.
SteveBev, does this help in reference to your question about Mexico?
“The Alien Enemy Act: History and Potential Use to Remove Members of International Criminal Cartels” | Congress. gov | Library of Congress, 4/2/25
…..
“President Trump’s executive order claims that international drug cartels “functionally control, through a campaign of assassination, terror, rape, and brute force nearly all illegal traffic across the southern border of the United States.” It also state that they function as “quasi-governmental entities, controlling nearly all aspects of society” in certain areas of Mexico and threaten “the safety of the American people, the security of the United States, and the stability of the international order in the Western Hemisphere.” Under this view, the entry of and continued presence of persons associated with designated cartels may be deemed to be engaging in a “qualified invasion or predatory incursion.” This theory appears to be unprecedented and has not been subject to judicial review.”
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11269
Much to Bleach Bondi’s chagrin that memo was not applicable in Judge Dugan’s courtroom. They knew the defendant would be present in the courtroom and they assembled a team of six agents (from several different agencies) specifically to detain him. It was not part of their natural course of duty and they knew that. They easily could have had a real warrant, not an administrative one. It was literally in the memo as part of regular procedure. IMO Bondi and the rest of the Axis of Evil doesn’t believe they need a judicial warrant….for anyone, let alone alleged criminal aliens. As other’s noted, this is performative to scare the rest of us, especially the undocumented, and sadly, anyone now who has a student visa or Green Card.
My WAG is that the obstruction of proceedings charge might have something to do with the following:
50 U.S. Code Chapter 3 – ALIEN ENEMIES
21. Restraint, regulation, and removal
22. Time allowed to settle affairs and depart
23. Jurisdiction of United States courts and judges
24. Duties of marshals
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-3
50 U.S. Code § 21 – Restraint, regulation, and removal | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
The President is authorized in any such event, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act…to establish any other regulations which are found necessary in the premises and for the public safety.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/21
I read all the brilliant legal minds in these comments yet I can’t help worry that without the rule of law and functional court system these arguments will mean nothing. I still fear this SCOTUS.
A colleague of Dugan’s wrote in an email:
Moreover, she (a Native American) writes about her recent experience on the bench:
Disregard of the (rule of) law seems to becoming an everybody’s sport.
Source:
https[blank]://[blank]www[blank].wisconsinrightnow[blank].com[blank]/wisconsin-judge-monica-isham-hannah-dugan-arrest/
(I put in [blank] at the places Rayne once commended.)
“Or gets me arrested” as a possible consequence for a judge declining to show up in a courthouse would have been hyperbole (at least to me) before Trump 2.0 and his accomplices took the field. Now, I wouldn’t question that as one outcome, not at all.
“Update: Now ICE is threatening to charge two people who asked three officers in plainclothes (one wearing a balaclava) to show a warrant. The complaint against Judge Dugin makes much of the fact that the six officers were in plainclothes, as if that helps.” well. that little link went to a long detailed report lining up many things to think about. marcy is always surprising, and satisfying, in her wide-ranging sources of contemplation. ya know?-she knows how to make ya think.
Slacktivist has some thoughts on ICE.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2025/04/28/the-difference-between-the-police-and-the-secret-police/
ICE and CPB have been thuggish for a long time. ICE was created in 2003 as part of the 9/11 response by Shrub, and almost immediately behaved like jackbooted thugs. FWIW, the first sanctuary city was apparently San Francisco (building upon a religious movement already in existence) in 1985.
In 1996 the law was changed to make minor crimes such as shoplifting a deportable offense among other changes. In 1994 CA passed Prop 187 (which has made the GOP unelectable in the statewide races) which brazenly targeted immigrants. Republicans have been going after immigrants every time they have had power to do so, sometimes with severe unintended consequences such as rotting produce in GA and FL.
Convict-1 / Krasnov signed EO 13768 in 2017 to defund sanctuary cities, but that was enjoined as ‘unconstitutional on its face by Judge Orick in CA. Jerry Brown in 2017 signed SB 54 into law making CA a ‘sanctuary state’.
All of the above shows at a skeletal level how pervasive and charged the debate has been and it’s doubtful to me that common ground can be found between the current positions. ICE isn’t helping itself by deporting citizens, either. For example, in the Honduras case (2-year-old sent along with her mother) it is not clear whether the father had his parental rights respected. I don’t know if he is a citizen.
Doctor Wheeler, your entire note was helpful, but your Update links to an article with a truly fascinating quote …
“It is shameful,” wrote an ICE spokesman who declined to be named in a Saturday morning statement, “that the Commonwealth Attorney, a sworn officer of the court and fellow law enforcement officer, has decided to prioritize politics over public safety — placing a criminal’s wellbeing above that of the brave women and men in law enforcement, whom the Commonwealth Attorney took an oath to support.”
(emphasis mine).
WHO does the Commonwealth Attorney take an oath to support?
If karma is a thing, the people who say stuff like that should end up living in a world where that’s true, which is even better than “sit in the corner and think about what you said”.
If only Trump 2.0 had anything like adult supervision …
From the Slacktivist post I linked:
I didn’t see your Slacktivist post before I commented – thank you for sharing that.
De nada! (It isn’t usually as apposite.)
Following up on my own comment … it turns out that the link Dr. Wheeler provided under “Update” is a lot longer, and more lurid, than the part of that article appearing above the links/pictures insertions. If anyone stopped reading after the quote from the unnamed ICE spokescritter, you might want to go back and finish it.