FBI arrests judge accused of helping man evade immigration authorities
892 comments
·April 25, 2025Animats
lolinder
Another key point is that generally speaking the charge of obstruction of justice requires two ingredients:
1) knowledge of a government proceeding
2) action with intent to interfere with that proceeding
It doesn't especially matter in this case whether ICE was entitled to enter the courtroom because she's not being charged for refusing to allow them entry to the room. The allegation is that upon finding out about their warrant she canceled the hearing and led the defendant out a door that he would not customarily use. Allegedly she did so with the intent of helping him to avoid the officers she knew were there to arrest him.
The government has to prove intent here, which as some have noted is difficult, but if the facts as recounted in the news stories are all true it doesn't seem that it would be overwhelmingly difficult to prove that she intentionally took action (2) to thwart an arrest that she knew was imminent (1).
hayst4ck
This is the constitutional crisis.
You are taking ICE's/the administration's perspective and assuming it is cogent which leads you to conclusion that doesn't support justice and instead supports the end of constitutional rule in the US.
The administration is in open violation of supreme court rulings and the law. They have repeatedly shown contempt for the constitution. They have repeatedly assumed their own supremacy. People responsible for enforcement are out of sync with those responsible for due process and legal interpretation. That is true crisis. These words are simple, but the emotional impact should be chilling. When considering the actions of the ICE agents, it seems very reasonable that aiding or abetting them would be an even greater obstruction of justice if not directly aiding and abetting illegal activity.
America is being confronted with a very serious problem. What happens when those responsible for enforcing the law break it or start enforcing "alternative" law? If the police are breaking the law, then there is no law, there is only power. Law is just words on paper without enforcement.
If the idea sounds farfetched, imagine if KKK members deciding to become police officers and how that changes the subjective experience of law by citizens compared to what law says on paper. Imagine they decide to become judges to. How would you expect that to pervert justice?
lolinder
> You are taking ICE's/the administration's perspective and assuming it is cogent which leads you to conclusion that doesn't support justice and instead supports the end of constitutional rule in the US.
No I'm not. I'm taking the facts as they're presented by the AP (which is famously not sympathetic to this administration) and saying that nothing in the facts that I'm seeing here in this specific case serves as evidence of a constitutional crisis. This is a straightforward case of obstruction: either she did the things that are alleged or she didn't. If she did, it's obstruction regardless of who is in the White House, and we have no reason to believe at this time that she didn't!
We have better litmus tests, better evidence of wrongdoing by the administration, and better cases to get up in arms about. If we choose our martyrs carelessly we're wasting political capital that could be spent showing those still on the fence the many actual, straightforward cases of overreach.
belorn
> America is being confronted with a very serious problem. What happens when those responsible for enforcing the law break it or start enforcing "alternative" law? If the police are breaking the law, then there is no law, there is only power. Law is just words on paper without enforcement.
The world has a concept that fits that description and it is a civil war. People pick up arms, a lot of people get killed, several generations end up in cycles of violence, children and old people dies first, and those that can will emigrate away from the conflict.
That is what happen if everyone agree that there is no law, only power, and act on that belief.
c_exclu
> This is the constitutional crisis.
> They have repeatedly shown contempt for the constitution.
> These words are simple, but the emotional impact should be chilling.
hayst4ck could you share what you think and how you feel about the previous time this happened in the late 1800s?
---
> This is the problem with legal fundamentalism or believing in the raw meaning of words without context or critically thinking.
> It is important to think about some paradoxical questions
> If someone is in violation of the law, can they expect the protection of the law?
> Is it right to perform an action that enforces the law, even if it violates the law?
> What happens when the law itself is unjust?
> What happens when unjust law is used to consolidate the power of those who act unjustly?
> Will strict adherence to the law create justice?
> Can you protect Rule of Law while strictly following the law as written?
> This country was founded as a deeply liberal country based on the philosophy of the father of liberalism himself, John Locke. There are some pretty hard questions he had develop a framework to overcome, and the core idea that founds that framework is consent.
What would John Locke have said about the acts of Denis Kearney, John Bigler, the 1858 California Legislature, John Harlan, Horace Page, Aaron Sargent, John Miller, Thomas Geary, Samuel Gompers, William Hearst, John Cable, and the 1876 California State Senate?
---
> We are currently in a state of lawlessness. Law is inconsistent with itself and enforcement is inconsistent with the orders of the judiciary.
> This is the crisis. We expect law to function as a consistent system, but right now it is not. One thing we know for a fact is that an inconsistent system can justify anything by holding it's inconsistent axioms as true.
> Due process is not to protect those who receive it. Due process exists to protect the integrity of the judiciary against those who have been blessed with the legitimate use of state power.
What would you have said about Denis Kearney, John Bigler, the 1858 California Legislature, John Harlan, Horace Page, Aaron Sargent, John Miller, Thomas Geary, Samuel Gompers, William Hearst, John Cable, and the 1876 California State Senate?
Jensson
Then don't fight these battles where they are in the right, fight them where they are in the wrong. Taking this fight here just gives all the advantage to Trump and his regime, fight them where it is easy to win.
mrandish
Yes, I agree. Setting aside the macro issues of A) The current admin's immigration policies, and B) The current admin's oddly extreme strategies involving chasing down undocumented persons in unusual places for immediate deportation. From a standpoint of only legal precedent and the ordinance this judge is charged under, the particular circumstances of this case don't seem to make it a good fit for a litmus test case or a PR 'hero' case to highlight opposition to the admin's policies. At least, there are many other cases which appear to be far better suited for those purposes.
To me, part of the issue here is that judges are "officers of the court" with certain implied duties about furthering the proper administration of justice. If the defendant had been appearing in her courtroom that day in a matter regarding his immigration status, the judge's actions could arguably be in support of the judicial process (ie if the defendant is deported before she can rule on his deportability that impedes the administration of justice). But since he was appearing on an unrelated domestic violence case, that argument can't apply here. Hence, this appears to be, at best, a messy, unclear case and, at worst, pretty open and shut.
Separately, ICE choosing to arrest the judge at the courthouse instead of doing a pre-arranged surrender and booking, appears to be aggressive showboating that's unfortunate and, generally, a bad look for the U.S. government, U.S. judicial system AND the current administration.
JumpCrisscross
> government has to prove intent here, which as some have noted is difficult, but if the facts as recounted in the news stories are all true it doesn't seem that it would be overwhelmingly difficult to prove that she intentionally took action (2) to thwart an arrest that she knew was imminent (1)
Dude used a different door so the FBI arrests a judge in a court room? At that point we should be charging ICE agents with kidnapping.
ivape
The government has to prove intent here, which as some have noted is difficult, but if the facts as recounted in the news stories are all true it doesn't seem that it would be overwhelmingly difficult to prove that she intentionally took action (2) to thwart an arrest that she knew was imminent
She is brave. I suspect we will look back on this one day if it goes that far. Even if you are staunch anti-immigration advocate, I would ask everyone to do the mental exercise of how one should proceed if the law or the enforcement of it is inhumane. The immigrant in question went for a non-immigration hearing, so this judge was brave (that's the only way I'll describe it). Few of us would have the courage to do that even for clear cut injustices, we'd sit back and go "well what can I do?". Bear witness, this is how.
Frontpage of /r/law:
ICE Can Now Enter Your Home Without a Warrant to Look for Migrants, DOJ Memo Says
https://dailyboulder.com/ice-can-now-enter-your-home-without...
lolinder
> ICE Can Now Enter Your Home Without a Warrant to Look for Migrants, DOJ Memo Says
This headline is deliberately inaccurate, as acknowledged within the article. It intentionally implies that any migrants are enough to qualify, but the memo is actually targeting a very specific gang:
> The gang in question is Tren de Aragua, a group the Trump administration recently labeled a foreign terrorist organization. But legal experts say this is no justification for shredding the Constitution.
They're correct that this is still extremely problematic, but that's no justification for shredding journalistic integrity.
I'm not arguing that any of this we're discussing is good or even not absolutely terrible, but there's a strong tendency in the current climate to overstate how bad things are. This is entirely unnecessary and actively counterproductive. Things are plenty bad as it is, we do not need to go around exaggerating the offenses committed by the Trump administration. Reporting things exactly as they are is plenty damning, and lying and exaggerating will just burn political and social capital totally unnecessarily.
ImPostingOnHN
You know who else tasked government police with hunting down minorities and legally punished those who helped said minorities escape persecution?
Jensson
Almost every single country on earth? Illegal immigrants are hunted down and deported everywhere and it is illegal to hide illegal immigrants.
USA is an exception here where local authorities doesn't govern immigration laws so you get "sanctuary cities", in almost every other country this sort of thing doesn't happen so illegal immigrants just get arrested and deported.
Gabriel54
There is no suggestion that the agents conducted a search or entered a non-public area. And this has nothing to do with the claim that the judge actively obstructed their efforts.
null
lolinder
The claim is that the judge, upon finding out that they were there to make an arrest, deliberately led the man out a back door which would under almost no circumstances be available to his use (the jury door), allowing him to bypass the officers attempting to make the arrest.
If true, that's pretty clearly a deliberate attempt to obstruct their efforts. The only question is whether obstructing ICE is classified as the legal offense of obstruction, but I don't have any specific reason to believe it wouldn't be.
godelski
> The only question is whether obstructing ICE is classified as the legal offense of obstruction
An important one is "does ICE have the authority to operate in the location they were operating in?" If the answer is no, then Dugan's actions cannot be interpreted as interfering with ICE's official operations. You cannot interfere with official operations when the operations are not official or legal. An extreme example of this would be like police arresting somebody, and in a formal interrogation they admit to murder, but the person was not read their Miranda rights. These statements would likely be inadmissible in a court. But subtle details matter, like if the person wasn't arrested or if they weren't being interrogated (i.e. they just blabbed).
This matters because the warrant. In the affidavit it says Dugan asked if the officer had a judicial warrant and were told they had an administrative warrant.[0] That linked article suggests that an administrative warrant can only be executed in an area where there is no expectation of privacy. This is distinct from public. There are many public places where you do have a reasonable expectation of privacy. A common example being a public restroom (same law means people can't take photos of you going to the bathroom). So is there a reasonable expectation of privacy here? I don't know.
I think it is worth reading the affidavit. Certainly it justifies probable cause (at least from my naive understanding). But the legal code is similar to programming code in that subtle details are often critical to the output. That's why I'm saying it isn't "the only question", because we'd need to not only know the answers to the above but answers to more subtle details that likely are only known to domain experts (i.e. lawyers, judges, LEO, etc)
[0] https://www.motionlaw.com/the-difference-between-judicial-an...
ajross
It can't very well be "obstruction" if they aren't empowered to do the search in the first place, can it?
No, this is a disaster. Hyperbole aside, this is indeed how democracy dies. Eventually this escalates to arresting more senior political enemies. And eventually the arbiter of whoever has the power to make and enforce those arrests ends up resting not with the elected government but in the law enforcement and military apparatus with the physical power to do so.
Once your regime is based on the use of force, you end up beholden to the users of force. Every time. We used to be special. We aren't now.
Jensson
> It can't very well be "obstruction" if they aren't empowered to do the search in the first place, can it?
The allegation is that she obstructed an arrest by changing standard procedure, she wasn't arrested for obstructing search that part was fine.
The ICE agents were legally allowed to wait outside and arrest the man as he stepped out, the judge leading the man out the backdoor after she learned ICE agents were waiting at the front is very hard to defend as anything but obstruction of arrest.
maxlybbert
Immigration law is wildly different from what people expect. But it is the law and it has been held up in countless court cases. This weirdness is not new.
I think most of the weirdness comes from the fact that entering the country illegally, or remaining in the country illegally can be crimes, but they can also be civil offenses. “Civil” means no jail time, but people still get deported without going to criminal court.
“Civil” also means “doesn’t have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt,” and “no constitutional right to a public defender.” Immigration law tries to provide limited forms of some of those ideas. There’s a kind of bail system, and people have a right to be represented by attorneys, but no right for those attorneys to be paid by the government. There is somebody referred to as an immigration judge, and they have a federal job, but they aren’t regular federal judges.
It’s possible to appeal an immigration court’s decision to a federal district court to get into the legal system we’re more familiar with.
* https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11536
* https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12158
switch007
> We used to be special.
Oh. Do expand.
asdsadasdasd123
[flagged]
linksnapzz
As it turns out, hyperbole is not aside.
s1artibartfast
How is that a key point? The agents were asked to wait in a public area, the hall outside the courtroom. There was a call with the chief judge who confirmed this is a public area.
The allegations revolve around judge Dugan's actions. They allegedly cancelled the targets hearing and [directed] the them through a private back door to avoid arrest.
Edit: directed, not escorted.
sasmithjr
> [Dugan allegedly] escorted the them through a private back door to avoid arrest.
According to the complaint [0] on page 11, Flores-Ruiz still ended up in a public hallway and was observed by one of the agents. They just didn't catch him before he was able to use the elevator.
INAL but I don't think "Dugan let Flores-Ruiz use a different door to get to the elevator than ICE expected" should be illegal.
[0]: https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/3d022b74...
lolinder
The outcomes are immaterial to the legal question of obstruction, the only factors are knowledge of the warrant and intent to help him escape. If he successfully avoided arrest but it cannot be proven that the judge intended that outcome, then she is not guilty of obstruction. If he got caught anyway but the judge intended to help him escape, that's still obstruction.
TrackerFF
If we're going to be technical about this, which one has to be in the eyes of the law, what is the difference between escorting them through the private back door vs escorting them through the front door?
How do you prove intent? That her intent was to obstruct?
They point out in the article that such room (juror room) is never usually used by certain people, but that still doesn't prove anything about her intent.
lolinder
If it can be credibly demonstrated that she cancelled the hearing and escorted the defendant out a back door within seconds of sending the officers away, that she had every intent of proceeding with the hearing before meeting with the officers, and that she and her peers did not usually use that door for defendants, then I would consider that to be proof beyond reasonable doubt that she intended to obstruct the arrest.
It's not a given, but it doesn't seem like an insurmountable burden of proof either.
Jensson
> that still doesn't prove anything about her intent.
If the only reason to use the backdoor is to avoid arrest, then that proves her intent. If there was another reason to use it then that will come up in court.
downrightmike
Key point is the Feds aren't obeying the law
insane_dreamer
If ICE wasn't legally authorized to search the premises or arrest the man, then the judge wasn't "obstructing" his arrest.
Jensson
They didn't need to search, they just needed to wait outside to arrest. That would have worked if the defendant didn't use the backdoor.
rolph
FBI should review thier fieldwork, alternate entrance/exits, must be secured or under watch, before the approach.
insane_dreamer
But they didn't have a valid warrant for arrest. Therefore him going out the back door was not "escaping arrest".
kemayo
> He accused Dugan of “intentionally misdirecting” federal agents who arrived at the courthouse to detain an immigrant who was set to appear before her in an unrelated proceeding.
It sounds like the arrest isn't because of any official act of the judge, but rather over them either not telling the ICE agents where the person was or giving them the wrong information about their location.
There are some pretty broad laws about "you can't lie to the feds", but I think the unusual thing here is that they're using them against a reasonably politically-connected person who's not their main target. (They're normally akin to the "we got Al Capone for tax evasion" situation -- someone they were going after, where they couldn't prove the main crime, but they could prove that they lied about other details.)
EDIT: since I wrote that 15 minutes ago, the article has been updated with more details about what the judge did:
> ICE agents arrived in the judge’s courtroom last Friday during a pre-trial hearing for Eduardo Flores Ruiz, a 30-year-old Mexican national who is facing misdemeanor battery charges in Wisconsin.
> Dugan asked the agents to leave and speak to the circuit court’s chief judge, the Journal Sentinel reported. By the time they returned, Flores Ruiz had left.
I.e. the ICE agents showed up in the middle of a court proceeding, and the judge said they'd need to get permission from the chief judge before they could interrupt proceedings. The judge then didn't stop the defendant from leaving once the proceeding was done.
EDIT 2: the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel article says:
> Sources say Dugan didn't hide the defendant and his attorney in a jury deliberation room, as other media have said. Rather, sources said, when ICE officials left to talk with the chief judge on the same floor, Dugan took the pair to a side door in the courtroom, directed them down a private hallway and into the public area on the 6th floor.
Which is an escalation above the former "didn't stop them", admittedly, but I'm not sure how it gets to "misdirection".
mjburgess
1. It isnt clear ICE agents have any legal authority to demand a judge tell them anything. 2. It is highly likely this is an official act, since it would be taken on behalf of court, so the immigrant can give, eg. testimony in a case.
A "private act" here would be the judge lying in order to prevent their deportation because they as a private person wanted to do so. It seems highly unlikely that this is the case.
kemayo
I updated my post with new information from the updated article, and in the context of that I think you're pretty much right. It sounds like the judge basically said "you need permission to arrest someone in the middle of my hearing, go get it" and then didn't change anything about the process of their hearing while that permission was being obtained.
This was definitely not them being helpful, but I'm incredibly doubtful that they could be successfully prosecuted for this.
pjc50
> incredibly doubtful that they could be successfully prosecuted for this.
But they can be successfully arrested. You can beat the rap but not the ride, etc.
The US is not yet at the level of dysfunction where jurisdiction is settled with gunfire, but ICE seem to be determined to move that closer.
pseudo0
That is not what is alleged in the complaint: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wied.11...
The allegation is that the judge got upset that ICE was waiting outside the courtroom, sent the law enforcement officers to the chief judge's office, and then adjourned the hearing without notifying the prosecutor and snuck the man with a warrant out through a non-public door not normally used by defendants.
If those facts are accurate, it sure sounds like obstruction. Judges have to obey the law just like everyone else.
californical
> incredibly doubtful that they could be successfully prosecuted
Strongly agree. But, as I’m sure we both know, some other less-politically-connected people will be a bit more afraid of getting arrested on ridiculous grounds because of this. So, mission accomplished.
alabastervlog
Successful prosecution isn't needed, the harassment and incurring high legal fees will discourage a dozen other judges who might be less than boot-licklingly helpful to the autocrat.
adolph
> It sounds like the judge basically said "you need permission to arrest someone in the middle of my hearing, go get it" and then didn't change anything about the process of their hearing while that permission was being obtained.
This is untrue if the FBI affidavit is believed. The judge adjourned the case without speaking to the prosecuting attorney, which is a change to the process of the hearing regarding three counts of Battery-Domestic Abuse-Infliction of Physical Pain or Injury.
Later that morning, Attorney B realized that FloresRuiz’s case had never
been called and asked the court about it. Attorney B learned that
FloresRuiz’s case had been adjourned. This happened without Attorney B’s
knowledge or participation, even though Attorney B was present in court to
handle Flores-Ruiz’s case on behalf of the state, and even though victims
were present in the courtroom.
A Victim Witness Specialist (VWS) employed by the Milwaukee County District
Attorney’s Office was present in Courtroom 615 on April 18, 2025. The VWS
made contact with the victims in Flores-Ruiz’s criminal case, who were also
in court. The VWS was able to identify Flores-Ruiz based upon the victims’
reactions to his presence in court. The VWS observed Judge DUGAN gesture
towards Flores-Ruiz and an unknown Hispanic woman. [...] The VWS stated that
Judge DUGAN then exited through the jury door with Flores-Ruiz and the
Hispanic woman. The VWS was concerned because Flores-Ruiz’s case had not yet
been called, and the victims were waiting.
willis936
[flagged]
ldoughty
According to the FBI complaint that was just made available:
Judge Dugan escorted the subject through a "jurors door" to private hallways and exits instead of having the defendant leave via the main doors into the public hallway, where she visually confirmed the agents were waiting for him.
I couldn't tell if the judge knew for certain that ICE was only permitted to detain the defendant in 'public spaces' or not.
Regardless, the judge took specific and highly unusual action to ensure the defendant didn't go out the normal exit into ICE hands -- and that's the basis for the arrest.
I don't necessarily agree with ICE actions, but I also can't refute that the judge took action to attempt to protect the individual. On one side you kind of want immigrants to show up to court when charged with crimes so they can defend themselves... but on the other side, this individual deported in 2013 and returned to the country without permission (as opposed to the permission expiring, or being revoked, so there was no potential 'visa/asylum/permission due process' questions)
mjburgess
If this is all true, it still requires the judge be under some legal order to facilitate the deportation -- unless they have a warrant of the relevant type, the judge is under no such obligation. With a standard (administrative) warrant, ICE have no authority to demand the arrest.
lostdog
The feds have been lying in their court filings for the past few months, so don't take their complaint at face value.
ivape
I'm amazed the immigrant actually even attended the court hearing in a climate like this. The person went to the court hearing in good faith. Anyway, probably less people will be going to court hearings now.
---
Wisconsin is also a major money pit for Elon, for whatever reason it's a battleground for everything that's going on this country:
Musk and his affiliated groups sunk $21 million into flipping the Wisconsin Supreme Court:
https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-supreme-court-elon-musk...
Musk gives away two $1 million checks to Wisconsin voters in high profile judicial race:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/musk-gives-away-two-1-milli...
It appears the Right has a thing for Wisconsin judges.
mullingitover
I'd wager dollars to donuts this is a "You'll beat the rap but you won't beat the ride" intimidation tactic: the FBI knows it doesn't have a case, but they don't need to have a case to handcuff the judge and throw them in jail for a few days. That intimidation and use of force against the judicial branch is the end in itself.
tbrownaw
> wager dollars to donuts
Donuts at the local grocery store are $7/dozen. If you're somewhere with generally higher prices, this bet might not be as lopsided as it's traditionally meant to be.
SpicyLemonZest
You'll be happy to know, then, that the judge was released on her own recognizance.
Gabriel54
Did you read the warrant? They did not demand the judge tell them anything. They knew he was there and were waiting outside the courtroom to arrest him. The judge confronted them and was visibly upset. She directed the agents elsewhere and then immediately told Ruiz and his counsel to exit via a private hallway. The attorney prosecuting the case against Ruiz and his (alleged) victims were present in the court and confused when his case was never called, even though everyone was present in the court.
ImPostingOnHN
"elsewhere" here means "to the correct location they should have gone in the first place, to give notice of, and gain approval for, their actions"
it's a pretty important detail
lolinder
What's being alleged is that she escorted the person out a rear entrance that is only used by juries and defendants who are in custody, not defense attorneys or free defendants. It is alleged that she interrupted the defendant on their way out the regular customary door and guided them through the rear door instead.
If those allegations are true (which is a big if at this stage), it's not hard to see how that could be construed to be a private act taken outside the course of her normal duties to deliberately help the defendant evade arrest.
That doesn't make what she did morally wrong, of course, but there is a world of difference between the kind of abuse of power that many people here are assuming and someone getting arrested for civil disobedience—intentionally breaking a law because they felt it was the right choice.
wonderwonder
"when ICE officials left to talk with the chief judge on the same floor, Dugan took the pair to a side door in the courtroom, directed them down a private hallway and into the public area on the 6th floor"
This is a private act and involved a private hallway
silisili
This leaves out a couple important things, at least from the complaint -
1 - ICE never entered the courtroom or interrupted. They stayed outside the room, which is public, but the judge didn't like this and sent them away.
2 - The judge, having learned the person in her courtroom was the target, instructed him to leave through a private, jury door.
These are from the complaint, so cannot be taken as fact, either.
mempko
If true, the judge is a hero
Jensson
Calling an illegal act heroic doesn't hold up in court though, we will hear what they say in court later.
throwawa14223
How so?
mvdtnz
For smuggling a domestic abuser out of her courtroom? Interesting.
JumpCrisscross
Under any occasion, it was inappropriate to arrest a judge like this.
We’re honestly at the point where I’d be comfortable with armed militias defending state and local institutions from federal police. If only to force someone to think twice about something like this. (To be clear, I’m not happy we’re here. But we are.)
dylan604
why do you think the people willing to be a part of the armed militias you mention are NOT on the same way of thinking as what ICE is attempting to do. that's just how the militia types tend to lean, so I don't think this would have the effect you're looking for
JumpCrisscross
> that's just how the militia types tend to lean
So far. I don’t think you’d have trouble recruiting an educated, well-regulated militia from folks who believe in the rule of law.
Teever
https://old.reddit.com/r/liberalgunowners/ is a thing.
Lots of people with a variety of political stripes own guns and are just less vocal about it.
kcatskcolbdi
and something tells me the side that spent decades demonizing firearm ownership probably can't win an arms race against their ideological opponents.
southernplaces7
Yes except that the very same armed types, after years of being derided by Democrat and progressive types as ignorant rednecks, are the least likely (for now at least) to defend a judge being targeted for protecting immigrants by the Trump administration. I know of no armed militia types that are of the opposing political persuasion, being armed is just a bit too kitsch and crude for them it seems. Maybe they reconsider their views of armed resistance in these years.
djeastm
Maybe those groups are better at disguising themselves.
senderista
I guess you weren't there for the CHOP, where there were masked antifa wandering around with AR-15s and intimidating business owners.
s1artibartfast
The charge seems colorable to me, and I think most people would agree the judge was obstructing justice if you strip out the polarizing nature of ICE detentions.
If you take the charges at face value, Law enforcement was there to perform an arrest and the judge acted outside their official capacity to obstruct.
gosub100
Why don't you organize one?
JumpCrisscross
> Why don't you organize one?
I live in Wyoming. Our courts aren’t being attacked.
I’d absolutely be open to lending material support to anyone looking to lawfully organise something like this in their community, however.
dmoy
It is illegal in all 50 states to organize a militia.
mindslight
We've got National Guards under the command of state governors for a reason. Just sayin'.
dragonwriter
> We've got National Guards under the command of state governors for a reason.
Yes, but that reason is not for rebellion against the federal government, which is why their equipment and training is governed by the federal government and the President can by fiat order them into federal service at which point he is the C-in-C, not the government.
Most states do also have their own non-federal reserve military force in additionto their National Guard, but those tend to be tiny and not organized for independent operations (e.g., the ~900 strength California State [not National] Guard.)
esbranson
[flagged]
lolinder
Party composition changes over time, and the people who made up the KKK switched parties starting when JFK backed the civil rights movement. It's the right wing militias that are the spiritual successors to the KKK, not the Democratic party.
As much as I wish we had a Republican party that was an actual successor to Lincoln's, that's not how political parties work.
https://economics.princeton.edu/working-papers/why-did-the-d...
joquarky
Please read up on the Dunning Kruger effect.
Centigonal
What would have been the right move for Dugan here, according to ICE?
Can a judge legally detain a defendant after a pre-trial hearing on the basis of "there are some agents asking about you for unrelated reasons?"
crooked-v
It's not related to legal proceedings, so, no.
The point of the arrest is to pressure judges into illegally doing it anyway.
rolph
you need a warrant and established PC, and you need to request administrative recess of court in session. You cant stay in the framework of US law while walking into court and expect a judge to transfer custody of a defendant because you say so.
dfxm12
According to ICE? "Comply with whatever we say". It's obvious that the current admin is operating autocratically, outside the law.
eterps
My thoughts exactly.
marcusverus
He showed the defendant out a side door to help him avoid ICE, who were waiting at the main door.
> What would have been the right move for Dugan here, according to ICE?
The right move was to not violate the law by taking steps which were intended to help the defendant evade ICE.
Centigonal
I was not aware of this accusation when I made my original comment
>Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan is accused of escorting the man and his lawyer out of her courtroom through the jury door last week after learning that immigration authorities were seeking his arrest. The man was taken into custody outside the courthouse after agents chased him on foot.
This might change the calculus.
NoMoreNicksLeft
Judges have what most people would consider insane levels of legitimate power while sitting on the bench itself inside the courtroom. Just outside the door, those powers are not quite so intense, but he can have you thrown in a cage just for not doing what he says, and he can command nearly anything. He could certainly demand that someone not leave the courtroom if he felt like doing so, and there would be no real remedy even if he did so for illegitimate reasons. Perhaps a censure months later.
spamizbad
This to me seems like a completely lawful act on the part of the judge?
tedivm
The ICE agents didn't have a warrant, so the judge was under no legal obligation to say anything to them at all.
dionian
according to this story, they had a warrant: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2025/04/23/ice-...
tedivm
According to the story you linked, they claim they had a warrant but the judge and other staff say the warrant was never presented.
Further, ICE has a habit of lying about this. They refer to the documents they write as "administrative warrants", which are not real judicial warrants and have no legal standing at all. So when ICE says they presented a warrant it's important to dig in and see if it was one of their fake ones.
Here's an article about that last point from the same source you used: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/2025/04/23/what-is...
kabdib
note that ICE often attempts to treat administrative warrants as judicial warrants, and it's unclear from this reporting what they actually had
[edit: it was an administrative warrant, not an _actual_ judicial warrant]
Jtsummers
> I.e. the ICE agents showed up in the middle of a court proceeding, and the judge said they'd need to get permission from the chief judge before they could interrupt proceedings. The judge then didn't stop the defendant from leaving once the proceeding was done.
Since there were multiple agents (the reports and Patel's post all say "agents" plural) they could have left one at the courtroom, or outside, rather than all going away. Then there'd have been no chase and no issue.
The question is if the judge should have held the man or not for the agents who chose to leave no one behind to take him into custody after the proceeding finished.
whats_a_quasar
To your question - A state judge cannot be required to hold someone on behalf of federal agents. That's federalism 101 and settled law.
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/sanctuary--supremacy--h...
542354234235
But judges can be arrested for doing nothing illegal to intimidate and bully them into not acting based on settled law.
null
csomar
> The question is if the judge should have held the man
This is bananas. The judges (or anyone else for that matter) should not be able to hold this man (or any other man) without an arrest warrant.
KennyBlanken
ICE doesn't issue warrants, because they can't. Immingration matters aren't criminal, and ICE are not law enforcement, though they certainly love to cosplay as some sort of mix between law enforcement and military.
That's why ICE has to "ask" law enforcement to hold on to someone who gets arrested on another matter, and why plenty of police departments tell them to go pound sand.
jandrese
I wouldn't be surprised if the agents are required to stay together when doing deportation arrests because they don't know when an immigrant might revert to their demon form and incapacitate a lone officer.
dylan604
while funny, there is a reason for federals coming in pairs so they can act as a witness for the other with things like lying to a federal officer.
this doesn't sound like the plural just meant 2 here, so it really does come across as Keystone Cops level of falling over themselves to not leave behind someone to keep an eye on their subject.
analog31
For all the judge could have known, the agents weren't coming back.
s1artibartfast
The claim is different. Agents with an arrest warrant waited in the public hallway, as asked and required by the judges.
The judge skipped the hearing for the target and [directed] them out a private back door in an attempt to prevent arrest, leading to a foot chase before apprehension.
Edit: directed, not escorted
Jtsummers
That information came out after my comment, and also long after the edit window. The updated FBI claim is certainly more damning for the judge (actively impeding their efforts).
KennyBlanken
Immigration violations are not criminal matters, they're civil. Further, they're federal, not state.
You cannot be held by law enforcement or the judiciary for being accused of a civil violation.
prepend
I thought they were misdemeanor crimes [0] punishable by jail time.
So they are crimes, but not huge.
I’m not a lawyer or a law enforcement officer, but I thought that local law enforcement can certainly hold someone charged with a federal crime. Eg, if someone commits the federal crime of kidnapping, then local cops can detain that person until transferred to FBI.
duxup
Doesn't seem to make sense that ICE should be able to interrupt a preceding at will.
And the fact that they left and came back and someone they wanted wasn't there, that's on them....
jawiggins
The AP article [1] has the full complaint linked, the crux of the case seems to be around the judge allowing the defendant to leave through a back entrance ("jury door") when they were aware agents were waiting in the public hallway to make an arrest as they exited.
" 29. Multiple witnesses have described their observations after Judge DUGAN returned to her courtroom after directing members of the arrest team to the Chief Judge’s office. For example, the courtroom deputy recalled that upon the courtroom deputy’s return to the courtroom,defense counsel for Flores-Ruiz was talking to the clerk, and Flores-Ruiz was seated in the jury box, rather than in the gallery. The courtroom deputy believed that counsel and the clerk were having an off-the-record conversation to pick the next court date. Defense counsel and Flores-Ruizthen 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.” Despite having been advised of the administrative warrant for the arrest of Flores-Ruiz, Judge DUGAN then escorted Flores-Ruiz and his counsel out of the courtroom through the “jury door,” which leads to a nonpublic area of the courthouse. 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."
[1]: https://apnews.com/article/immigration-judge-arrested-799718...
dang
Thanks - I've changed the URL to that article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/04/25/... above.
crooked-v
I find it extremely doubtful that she told the agents he'd be leaving through a particular door or that she had any legal obligation to make sure the man exited in a particular way.
lurk2
United States Code, Title 8, § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) (2023)
> (1)(A) Any person who
[…]
> (iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
[…]
> shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2023-title8/html/...
mrguyorama
>attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien
Does that cover "Hey, this door is closer to where we are going"? It's going to rest on convincing a jury that the only possible reason the suspect would go out that door would be the judge explicitly trying to help them evade arrest.
IMO that should be impossible to prove but we have never taken "Beyond a reasonable doubt" seriously.
"knowing or in reckless disregard"
Funny, nobody ever arrests any of the employers choosing not to verify the documents of their employees.
gosub100
The alien was already "detected", that's why they were at the courthouse. She didn't harbor him, she was performing her job and the defendant was required to be there. I also fail to see how she "concealed" him either. "Aiding and abetting" would be a stretch, but still more accurate verbs. But those aren't in the law you quoted.
jasonlotito
So, based on the affidavit and the facts presented in the article, we know this doesn't apply to the Judge.
ein0p
A case study on media narrative peddling: https://www.koat.com/article/las-cruces-former-judge-allegat...
Original title: "Former New Mexico judge and wife arrested by ICE". It's as though he wasn't an active judge while harboring an alleged Tren De Aragua gang member.
Protip: believe absolutely nothing you read in mainstream news sources on any even remotely political topic. Read between the lines, sort of like people used to read Pravda in the Soviet Union.
lolinder
What's being alleged is that she deliberately escorted the man out through an exit that is not usually made available to members of the public, instead of allowing him to leave through the regular door that would likely have put him right into the hands of ICE. If that was done with the intent of helping him evade arrest (which, if the story above is accurate, seems likely), it seems very reasonable to charge her with obstruction.
None of that is to say that what she did was morally wrong—often the law and morality are at odds.
dionian
there is usually only one exit to a courtroom, in the back
crooked-v
No, there are usually several entrances/exits, such as for jurors, prisoners, judge's chambers, and the general public.
xyzzy9563
It's a crime to harbor or aid illegals in evading federal authorities. So this is a legal obligation of every person.
insane_dreamer
Except that the authorities didn't have a valid warrant, signed by a judge, to arrest someone.
(It's not a crime to aid illegals if the authorities don't have a valid warrant.)
neilpointer
it's also unconstitutional to deny people due process but that's clearly been disregarded by the current administration. Reap what you sow.
DrillShopper
[flagged]
Miner49er
How in the world is this an arrestable offense. Escorting someone out of a room?
lolinder
If it can be proven that she deliberately escorted the person through the non-public exit to the courtroom with the intent of helping them evade arrest by officers with a warrant who were waiting outside at the other entrance, how would that not be an arrestable offence?
We're extremely light on facts right now, so I'm not taking the above quoted story at face value, but if one were to take it at face value it seems pretty clear cut.
AIPedant
The part that makes it not so clear cut is that this is really a constitutional issue rather than a criminal one. It is not credible that the judge was trying to ensure the man could keep living in the US undocumented. She was defending her court. From a judge's POV, arresting a plantiff/defendant in the middle of a trial is a violation of their right to a trial and impedes local prosecutors' abilities to seek justice.
Ultimately this seems like Trump asserting that the federal executive branch has unfettered veto authority over local judicial branches. That doesn't sit well with me.
Miner49er
I guess I would hope it takes more then that to rise to the level of obstruction.
Additionally, you have to prove intent, and unless the judge was careless, I doubt they will ever be able to do that. I'd bet the prosecution knows this, I don't think they expect the charges to stick. It seems this arrest was done to send a message.
More evidence of that is that typically in this kind of case they would invite her to show up somewhere to accept process, not be arrested like a common criminal.
null
bix6
From reading the affidavit it’s clear to me there is a lot of uncertainty and confusion around these situations. Clearly the judges are upset with ICE making arrests in the public spaces within the court hall while ICE views it as the perfect place since the defendant will be unarmed. This was an administrative warrant and IANAL but doesn’t that not require local cooperation e.g the judge is in her right to not help or comply with the warrant?
xpe
See also section D that says "Judge DUGAN escorts Flores-Ruiz through a “jury door” to avoid his arrest" in https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wied.11... labeled "Case 2:25-mj-00397-SCD Filed 04/24/25" (13 pages)
euroderf
There has to be precedents in case law for how to assess this.
trollied
You might want to read this https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/sanctuary--supremacy--h...
cactacea
ICE has absolutely no business in state courthouses. The federal interest in enforcing immigration law should not be placed above the state's interest in enforcing equal protection under the law. Consider the case of a undocumented rape victim. Do they not deserve justice? Are we better off letting a rapist go free when their victim cannot testify against them because they were deported? I think not and I do not want to live in that society.
kstrauser
Nailed it. Keep that stuff away from:
* Police interactions, unless you want people refusing to cooperate with police.
* Hospitals, unless you want people refusing to seek medical care for communicable diseases.
* Courtrooms, unless you want people to skip court or refuse to testify as witnesses.
My wife likes watching murder investigation TV shows. Sometimes the homicide detectives will talk to petty criminals like street-level drug dealers, prostitutes, and the like. The first thing the detectives do is assure them that they're there about a murder and couldn't care less about the other minor stuff. They're not going to arrest some guy selling weed when they want to hear his story about something he witnessed.
Well, same thing here but on a bigger stage.
morkalork
Except that's TV and police often nail petty criminals for petty crimes in the process of larger investigations and they wonder why they get so little public support and cooperation.
FreebasingLLMs
[dead]
s1artibartfast
Consider the case of an arrest warrant for a rapist. Can it not be served at a courthouse? What if a judge smuggled them out a private door after being informed of the arrest warrant.
Edit: the charge isn't for refusing to enforce. It's for smuggling someone out in attempt to actively impede their arrest.
tmiku
You're missing the point - a rapist would have a criminal arrest warrant, which would absolutely be the courthouse's responsibility to enforce. The ICE agents attempted to disrupt a criminal proceeding to enforce a civil immigration warrant not signed by a judge. More on that distinction here: https://www.fletc.gov/ice-administrative-removal-warrants-mp...
timewizard
> Are we better off letting a rapist go free when their victim cannot testify against them because they were deported?
That's not an actual outcome that would occur. Cases can proceed if the victim is unavailable. Do we let a rapist off because their victim had an untimely death? Obviously not.
In the case of a deportee, if we have a sworn statement from them, or can remotely depose them, then their testimony would be included in the trial.
mulmen
> In the case of a deportee, if we have a sworn statement from them, or can remotely depose them, then their testimony would be included in the trial.
In a world where we deport people without due process to subcontracted megaprisons in El Salvador “if” is doing a lot of work.
mrguyorama
In the real world, cases die all the time because the victim refuses to cooperate with the police.
This is the point of things like immunity, and laws against witness tampering, and why the Mafia spent so much effort ensuring you knew you would die if you took the stand.
timewizard
> the victim refuses to cooperate
You're describing an entirely different situation. Unless you're saying that deporting someone makes them wholly unable to participate in the process which is what I'm precisely disagreeing with. Cooperating can include things like simply filling out an affidavit or participating in remote depositions.
> and why the Mafia spent so much effort ensuring you knew you would die if you took the stand.
Removing someone from the country does not kill them.
thrance
A sane argument against an insane position. Republicans are perfectly fine with unpunished violence against non-citizens. No wonder tourism is sharply declining.
Hojojo
[flagged]
spacemadness
People are quibbling without understanding what kind of warrant it was even. They just read “warrant” or are using it in bad faith. We have a lot of bad faith arguers on HN due to it being a public forum. If you check their post history it’s very apparent.
lliamander
[flagged]
km144
Your point does not engage with the question raised in the comment you're replying to. Would you like to live in a society where criminal justice is secondary to immigration enforcement? One where we deport people with acute conditions without treatment because they are not authorized to live in this country? Dealing with the "root cause" does not require inflicting unnecessary cruelty upon other human beings.
> it has now rendered the fate of all of those people subject to the whims of whomever is in power.
Who is in power? What does our Constitution say? The executive branch is not granted absolute authority over immigration policy and the treatment of humans—citizens or otherwise. That is a Constitutional crisis.
lliamander
[flagged]
cactacea
You have completely missed the point of my comment.
lliamander
No, you made up a hypothetical scenario that was highly sympathetic to your position. I am saying that we should not let edge cases (real or hypothetical) dictate general policy on how we handle immigration law enforcement, and that any outrage we feel at the tragedies that result from such enforcement should be directed toward the people that allowed these situations to develop in the first place.
fzeroracer
People in this country have rights, regardless of how they entered. You either believe in the constitution and it's application to all citizens and non-citizens or you're a fascist.
I'm not going to quibble on any other bits of misdirection or failure to read other people's posts. Pick your side.
lliamander
I've heard that accusation so frequently from people who have zero concern about the constitution, let alone even know what it says, that I honestly struggle not to laugh.
I quite obviously reject your framing, and believe that there is a real discussion about how to properly adhere to the constitution in the face of conflicting considerations. But you do you.
djoldman
The arrest itself (not necessarily the charges) is best described as a publicity stunt. If you want to charge a lawyer or judge or anyone unlikely to run of a non-violent crime, you invite them to the station:
> “First and foremost, I know -- as a former federal prosecutor and as a defense lawyer for decades – that a person who is a judge, who has a residence who has no problem being found, should not be arrested, if you will, like some common criminal,” Gimbel said. “And I'm shocked and surprised that the US Attorney's office or the FBI would not have invited her to show up and accept process if they're going to charge her with a crime.”
> He said that typically someone who is “not on the run,” and facing this type of crime would be called and invited to come in to have their fingerprints taken or to schedule a court appearance.
legitster
To clarify - the only time you ever need to "arrest" someone and place them in custody is if you are worried they are either going to commit violent crimes or are going to be a flight risk before they can see a judge.
To arrest a judge in the middle of duties is absolutely the result of someone power tripping.
genter
Kash Patel's since-deleted tweet: https://www.threads.com/@pstomlinson/post/DI3-hnfuDvL
> Thankfully our agents chased down the perp on foot and he's been in custody since, ...
I feel like I'm watching reality TV. Which makes sense, we have a reality TV star for president and his cabinet is full of Fox news hosts.
jandrese
Can you imagine being a law enforcement officer bringing a case before a judge that you previously arrested on a flimsy pretext in order to intimidate them? That's going to be awkward.
kasey_junk
Federal agents probably don’t worry too much about being in local misdemeanor court.
fencepost
I'd also call it a publicity stunt because DOJ leadership would have to prove themselves [even more?] utterly idiotic to let this go to a jury trial.
I can't imagine this ending in any way other than dropped charges, though they may draw it out to make it as painful as possible prior to that.
Kapura
It is a statement that the current regime wants to discourage judicial independence. A judge is not an agent of ICE or the feds; they have undergone study and election and put in a position where their discretion has the weight of law. It's frankly disgusting to see how little separation of powers means to Republicans.
masklinn
> It is a statement that the current regime wants to discourage judicial independence.
That’s not exactly new, I was recently reminded that during the governor’s meeting when Trump singled Maine out for ignoring an EO the governor replied that they’d be following the law, and Trump’s rejoinder was that they (his administration) are the law.
That was two months ago, late February.
hypeatei
> disgusting to see how little separation of powers means to Republicans.
It's just like "states rights" where it only matters so long as you stay in their good graces. Very reflective of how they operate internally today: worship Trump or you're out.
giraffe_lady
Public displays of executive power and disregard for political and legal norms is slightly more than a publicity stunt. They are related ideas but come on. Like describing a cross burning as a publicity stunt. This is a threat.
whats_a_quasar
No, a "publicity stunt" is not the best way to describe this latest escalation in the Trump administration's campaign to destroy the rule of law in America. It may be deliberately flashy, but that phrasing very much undersells the significance of the executive attacking the judiciary.
kstrauser
Part of the reason why I support "sanctuary cities" is that it's better for everyone if undocumented immigrants feel safe talking to the police. Imagine someone broke into my car and there was a witness who saw the whole thing. I want them to be OK telling the cops what happened. I want them to be OK reporting crimes in their neighborhood. I want them to be OK testifying about it in court. I want them to be OK calling 911.
Even if I put all human rights issues aside, I don't want anyone to be punished for talking to the police simply because of their immigration status, because their freedom to do so makes my own daily life safer.
Well, that goes double for courtrooms. If some guy's due to testify in a murder case, I don't want him skipping court because some quota-making jackass at ICE wants to arrest him because of a visa issue.
In this case, the person was actually in court to face misdemeanor charges (of which they haven't been convicted yet, i.e. they're still legally innocent). I want people to go to court to face trial instead of skipping out because they fear they'll be arrested and deported for unrelated reasons. I bet the judge has pretty strong opinions on that exact issue, too.
openasocket
There's another argument that you touched on in your last paragraph that I think deserves to be underlined, which is about proper accountability.
Imagine an undocumented immigrant who commits a serious crime, like murder. Do you want the local prosecutors to go after them, and send them to jail for a long time? Or do you want ICE to go after them, in which case they ... get deported and wind up living free in another country (putting aside the current debacle with El Salvador and CECOT). Where is the justice in that? If someone commits some sort of crime in the US, I want justice to be served before we talk about deporting them.
pcthrowaway
Undocumented immigrants who are charged with murder should not be deported without a trial first. If found guilty they would typically serve their sentence before facing deportation (though perhaps this is different now)
Though I personally don't see the point in making people who are going to be deported anyway serve a sentence... taxpayers would then be paying the bill for both their incarceration and their deportation.
But I also think incarceration should primarily be focused on rehabilitation, which it's currently not designed for, so what do I know.
kristjansson
> Though I personally don't see the point in making people who are going to be deported anyway serve a sentence
Because 'come here, do crime, get a free flight home' sets up a very bad incentive structure for bad actors? Because deportation is not a punishment?
mulmen
So you are in favor of rehabilitation but you want to gatekeep it?
Undocumented immigrants are taxpayers.
noemit
Funny enough, CECOT only exists because of this. MS-13 started in the United States, and only spread to El Salvador because of deportations, making El Salvador completely unlivable.
sarlalian
That is a very simple explanation to an obviously more complex issue.
trhway
> Imagine an undocumented immigrant who commits a serious crime, like murder. ..... wind up living free in another country
Check out that Russian guy, a director at NVIDIA at the time, so i'd guess pretty legal immigrant, who had a DUI deadly crash on I-85 in summer 2020, and for almost 3 years his lawyers were filing piles of various defenses like for example "statute of limitations" just few month after the crash, etc., and he disappeared later in 2022, with a guy with the same name, age, face, etc. surfacing in Russia as a director of AI at a large Russian bank.
https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/one-dead-driver-ar...
pfannkuchen
I mean banishment has worked pretty well for crimes historically. The punishment/rehabilitation spectrum is wrong on both sides IMO. If the threat is gone, from a utility perspective it doesn’t really matter how it happens.
godelski
Has it?
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolanus
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_IV_of_England
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin
hypeatei
This line of thinking only works if you consider illegal immigrants as people of which a certain side does not and is actively arguing that the bill of rights only applies to citizens.
Basically, if you view illegal immigrants as the end of the world, then any deferral of their deportation is equally as bad. There is no room for discussion on this topic, being "illegal" is a cardinal sin and must be punished at all costs.
ClumsyPilot
> bill of rights only applies to citizens.
I could argue that it’s inhumane, contradicts all the values US claims to stand for, or could be used as a back door to harass citizens.
But ultimately fundamental issue is this - if you want to be a seat of global capital and finance, a global reserve currency and the worlds most important stock exchange, that is the price. Transnational corporations, their bosses and employees have to feel secure.
That is the only reason (often corrupt) businessman take their money from Russia, China, and other regimes that do not guarantee human rights and bring it to the west.
hypeatei
I think some are missing the sarcasm. I enjoyed your comment at least.
godelski
> if you consider illegal immigrants as people
The logic works just fine if you recognize that it is impossible to achieve 100% success rate. It is absolutely insane to me that on a website full of engineers people do not consider failure analysis when it comes to laws.
Conditioned that you have not determined someone is an illegal immigrant:
_______What do you want to happen here? _________________
if (person.citizenStatus == illegal && person.citizenStatus in police.knowledge()) {
deport(person, police)
} else if (person.citizenStatus == illegal) {
// What do you want to happen?
// deport(person) returns error. There is no police to deport them
} else if (person.citizenStatus == legal) {
fullRights(person)
} else if (person.citizenStatus == unknown {
// Also a necessary question to answer
// Do you want police randomly checking every person? That's expensive and a similar event helped create America as well as a very different Germany
} else {
// raise error, we shouldn't be here?
}
EDIT:
> the bill of rights only applies to citizens
throwawayqqq11
This is full of flaws.
After due process via courts, deportation is justified. So you need a big "if" before all of that.
ICE is not the police.
There should be no (broad) if-clause to grant rights.
Unknown citizenship is not something you need to check for constantly, as you hinted.
Gabriel54
What is the purpose of laws if they are willfully ignored? Where do you draw the line? If the police don't care about someone's immigration status, why should they care about who broke into your car?
gortok
This over-simplifies our federal system to the point of uselessness.
The Federal Government is responsible for immigration. It's their job to set policies and adjudicate immigration issues.
Local and State Law Enforcement are not responsible for -- and indeed it is outside of their powers to enforce immigration laws.
Supreme Court precedent is that states cannot be compelled by Congress to enforce Immigration law (see: Printz v. United States).
So, what you have in this situation are the fact that States and the Federal Government have opposing interests: The States need to be able to enforce their laws without their people feeling like they can't tell the police when there's a crime, and the current federal policy is to deport all undocumented immigrants, no matter why they're here or whether they are allowed to be here while their status is adjudicated.
Gabriel54
> Supreme Court precedent is that states cannot be compelled by Congress to enforce Immigration law (see: Printz v. United States).
So the supreme court struck a reasonable compromise between federal and state interests. I am not a lawyer, but I am certain that this precedent does not give states the right to actively obstruct federal agents from doing their job, that is, to enforce federal immigration law.
dragonwriter
> Supreme Court precedent is that states cannot be compelled by Congress to enforce Immigration law
Not just immigration law but federal law generally. It's funny that this never reached the point of beign a decision rule in a case and thus binding precedent until the 1990s, as you see it in dicta in Supreme Court cases decided on other bases back to shortly before the Civil War (specifically, in cases around the Fugitive Slave Laws.)
null
crote
Should a serial killer go unpunished because its sole witness would face lifetime imprisonment for jaywalking if they were to testify? Do you believe gangs should roam free due to a lack of evidence, or would it be better if they could be rolled up by offering a too-sweet-to-ignore plea deal to a snitch?
Laws are are already routinely being ignored. There's a massive amount of discretionary choice space for law enforcement and prosecution. It's not as black-and-white as you're making it sound.
mmanfrin
> What is the purpose of laws if they are willfully ignored?
Nearly every liberty we take for granted was at one point against the law or gained through willful lawbreaking. A healthy society should be tolerant of some bending of the rules.
Gabriel54
I agree with you. A quick search suggests that there are 11 million undocumented people in the United States, or about 3% of the population. A healthy society does not harbor 11 million people without documentation so they can be exploited by employers for cheap labor, not given proper health care and labor rights.
godelski
> A healthy society should be tolerant of some bending of the rules.
So even without a direct expansion of rights and the natural progression of societies to change over time, we have to at minimum recognize that there is a distinction between "what the rule says" and "what the intended rule is". This is like alignment 101.
dbspin
The line is prosecution policy. There are thousands of laws on the books that are never enforced, particularly in the United States. Given the inhuman and grossly illegal deportation without due process of thousands of people by the Trump administration - to an extrajudicial torture prison no less - many means of resisting the kidnap of people (citizens or non) are reasonable).
petre
I hope Trump ends up in prison, that's all I can say.
Arguably South Korea has better democracy, because Yoon Suk Yeol is probably going to prison for insurrection.
ClumsyPilot
I am still waiting for a “corporations are people” to get death penalty
onetimeusename
That sounds reasonable but would you also support a strongly enforced border and tighter policies on illegal immigration so this isn't an issue in the first place? I think it becomes hand-wringing and disingenuous when it starts to seem that this isn't really about reasonable policy and it's more about trying to prevent deportations by any means necessary. What's unspoken is that there are deeply held, non-articulated beliefs that open borders policies are a good thing. These views aren't generally popular with the electorate so the rhetoric shifted to subtler issues like what you are describing.
kstrauser
Depends on the enforcement methods and the policies. Of course we can defend our border. No, we shouldn't waste billions on some stupid fence that will be climbed or tunneled or knocked over or walked around. I'm absolutely willing to have the discussion about what appropriate policies should be, as long as we can agree that we're talking about real, live humans who are generally either trying to flee from the horrible circumstances they were born into, or trying to make a nicer lives for themselves and their families, and the policies reflect that.
I'm not for open borders. In any case, that's irrelevant to whether I think ICE should be hassling people inside a courthouse for other reasons, which I think is bad policy for everyone.
thuanao
I want "sanctuary cities" because the whole idea of "illegal" people is tyrannical and inhumane.
timewizard
Replace illegal immigration with any other crime.
What if a witness to a murder is an accused thief? Should we let thefts go unpunished because it may implicate their testimony in more severe crimes? What we actually do is offer the person reduced sentencing in exchange for their cooperation but we don't ignore their crime.
In terms of illegal immigrants, if they haven't filed any paperwork, or haven't attempted to legally claim asylum, then they shouldn't be surprised they're left without legal protections, even if they happen to have witnessed a more severe crime.
kristjansson
> we don't ignore their crime
And no one is asking the relevant authorities to ignore their duties to enforce immigration policy. They're just saying that state and local courts and police aren't the relevant authorities, and that they'd prefer to have the rest of the apparatus of government function with and for undocumented people.
godelski
This. Same with giving them TINs so that they pay taxes. These BENEFIT citizens and permanent residents of the country.
I see a lot of comments being like "what's the point of laws if they get ignored." Well, we're on a CS forum, and we have VMs, containers, and chroots, right? We break rules all the time, but recognize that it is best to do so around different contextualizations.
There's a few points I think people are missing:
1) The government isn't monolithic. Just like your OS isn't. It different parts are written by different people and groups who have different goals. Often these can be in contention with one another.
2) Containerization is a thing. Scope. It is both true that many agencies need to better communicate with one another WHILE simultaneously certain agencies should have firewalls between them. I bet you even do this at your company. Firewalls are critical to any functioning system. Same with some redundancy.
A sanctuary city is not a "get out of jail free card." They do not prevent local police from contacting ICE when the immigrant has committed a crime and local police has identified them. They are only protected in narrow settings: Reporting crimes to police, enrolling their children in school, and other minimal and basic services. If they run a stop sign and a cop pulls them over, guess what, ICE gets contacted and they will get deported[0].
Forget human rights, think like an engineer. You have to design your systems with the understanding of failure. So we need to recognize that we will not get 100% of illegal immigrants. We can still optimize this! But then, what happens when things fail? That's the question. In these settings it is "Conditioned that an illegal immigrant was not found, do we want them to report crimes to the police or not?" "Conditioned that an illegal immigrant was not found, do we want them to pay taxes?" How the hell can the answer be anything but "yes"? You can't ignore the condition. Absent of the condition, yeah, most people will agree that they should be deported. But UNDER THE CONDITION it is absolutely insane to not do these things.
There is, of course, another solution... But that condition is fairly authoritarian. Frequently checking identification of everyday persons. It is quite costly, extremely cumbersome to average citizens, and has high false positive rates. I mean we can go that route but if we do I think we'll see why a certain amendment exists. It sure wasn't about Grizzly Bears...
[0] They may have holding limits, like not hold the immigrant more than a week. Maybe you're mad at this, but why aren't you mad at ICE for doing their job? You can't get someone out there in a week? Come on. You're just expecting the local city to foot the bill? Yeah, it costs money. Tell ICE to get their shit together.
rufus_foreman
>> If some guy's due to testify in a murder case, I don't want him skipping court because some quota-making jackass at ICE wants to arrest him because of a visa issue
From the criminal complaint in this case:
"I also am aware that pursuant to its policies, which had been made known to courthouse officials, 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."
So it sounds like they take this into account. As for why they make arrests at the courthouse:
"The reasons for this include not only the fact that law enforcement knows the location at which the wanted individual should be located but also the fact that the wanted individual would have entered through a security checkpoint and thus unarmed, minimizing the risk of injury to law enforcement, the public, and the wanted individual."
Makes sense. Seems like they have weighed the risks and advantages of this and come up with a reasonable approach.
trhway
>and not arresting victims, witnesses, or individuals appearing for matters in family or civil court.
Tell that to the guy who is rotting in the El Salvador's torture prison despite having official protection from the US court, not just self-declared policy of ICE like that above. Especially considering how shady ICE and its people are, bottom of the barrel of federal law enforcement.
mint2
So now instead of appearing in court and face their consequences if guilty, they are motivated to flee and evade even if innocent of the crime they are appearing in court for?
bix6
Milwaukee journal is providing great coverage: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/breaking/2025/04/25/milw...
rahimnathwani
The AP article someone else linked is much better: it includes both:
- a PDF of the criminal complaint (court filing), and
- details of what specifically the complaint alleges (that the judge encouraged the person to escape out of a 'jury door' to evade arrest).
The phrase 'jury door' doesn't appear in the JS article.
bix6
Thanks, affidavit is worth the read. https://apnews.com/article/immigration-judge-arrested-799718...
legitster
A good reminder that we need to support local, professional journalism. Otherwise the only information we would be getting right now is official statements or hearsay.
DrillShopper
The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel now is just a reskin of USA Today[1]. They're not locally owned or controlled.
[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pr/2016/04/11/gannett-co...
legitster
The important thing is they are still paying for a journalism to do beat coverage in the area.
Everyone acts like independence is the most important aspect of journalism. But an independent blogger in New York rewording press releases is exactly how we got in this misinformation mess, and absolutely not a replacement for someone with a recorder walking around a courthouse asking questions.
null
eterps
> The New York Times observes that Kash Patel has now deleted his tweet (for unknown reasons) and adds that the charging documents are still not available.
https://bsky.app/profile/sethabramson.bsky.social/post/3lnnj...
crypteasy
Kash Patel tweeting in real-time indicates that he aware of it and at some-level involved with the arrest. It also shows that he sees this as a totally reasonable action and response - and wants the public to know about it.
null
axus
[flagged]
openasocket
At the moment we don't have a lot of the facts. All we seem to have at this moment is a (since deleted?) post from the head of the FBI. There's a ton of context that is missing. Like what does "intentionally misdirecting" mean? Does that mean saying "he went that way" when he really went in the opposite direction? Does it mean not answering questions about this person, or being obtuse? I'd also like to know more of the circumstances here. Did ICE agents literally walk into court and question the judge while sitting on the bench?
kemayo
Article has been updated with more context in recent minutes:
> ICE agents arrived in the judge’s courtroom last Friday during a pre-trial hearing for Eduardo Flores Ruiz, a 30-year-old Mexican national who is facing misdemeanor battery charges in Wisconsin.
> Dugan asked the agents to leave and speak to the circuit court’s chief judge, the Journal Sentinel reported. By the time they returned, Flores Ruiz had left.
So, yeah, sounds like they literally walked into court and interrupted a hearing. Given the average temperament of judges, I think the least immigrant-friendly ones out there would become obstructionists in that situation...
dmix
That still sounds pretty vague.
sixothree
Are these the agents that were recorded last week not wearing uniforms and not presenting identification?
openasocket
Devil is always in the details. But judges have a ton of discretionary power, and in fact obligations to, maintain order in their courtroom. Someone who disrupts a hearing can be forcibly removed by the bailiffs, can be fined, and can even be found in contempt and summarily jailed.
I mean, what’s next? If a judge doesn’t sign off on a warrant because they don’t find probable cause, is that obstructing justice?
NoMoreNicksLeft
Or they walked into the hearing, sat in the back, and didn't interrupt it. These proceedings are almost always public, and theoretically you or I could walk in and sit quietly without violating any rules. Without knowing more, they could have just been waiting patiently for the hearing to end, and they would have arrested him outside the courtroom after he had left.
In that case, what the judge did does amount to willful obstruction.
JumpCrisscross
> they could have just been waiting patiently for the hearing to end, and they would have arrested him outside the courtroom after he had left
Still doesn’t justify arresting a judge in a court house. This is incredibly close to where taking up arms to secure the republic starts to make sense.
openasocket
That would really depend on what the judge did, though. If the judge said, “the guy you are looking for is with the chief judge” and it turns out he wasn’t with the chief judge, that sounds like obstruction. If the judge said, “the chief judge wants to talk to you”, and the chief judge really did want to talk to the ICE agents, is that obstruction? In that scenario, ICE could have just not gone to see the chief judge until after arresting the suspect, or just sent one of their agents to talk to the chief judge and leave the rest in the courtroom.
bloopernova
[flagged]
ericras
No one is above the law.
TheOtherHobbes
No one poor is above the law.
As autocracy expands, so does the definition of "poor".
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Wilhoit's Law
MyOutfitIsVague
How many lawsuits were dropped and people pardoned at the discretion of the sitting president? Wasn't he the target of many legitimate lawsuits that were dropped? Didn't he pardon a bunch of people, including convicted fraudsters who grifted millions of dollars, relatively recently?
Somebody in particular is above the law, as are all his cronies.
pesus
Except the ones the Supreme Court says are.
MiguelHudnandez
If only that were true
timeon
How about president with felonies?
bananapub
I'm sorry, have you been in a coma the last 8 - 50 years?
baby_souffle
> No one is above the law.
unimaginable wealth has entered the chat...
chews
There are two types of warrants being talked about here, traditional judge signed warrants and "administrative"/"ICE" warrants. The first one carries the ability to perform a search and possible detainment subject to the 4th amendment protections, the latter allows for discretion under the 4th amendment (this may be an viewed as an unconstitutional search) the Judge exercised their discretion with respect for constitutional rights.
It's a sad day in America when people do actually enforce the rules get trapped by other rules.
lupusreal
> It's a sad day in America when people do actually enforce the rules get trapped by other rules.
The people who enforce the rules being bound by the rules is precisely the way it is meant to work. Of course, it remains to be seen if any laws were actually broken.
rekttrader
You’re making the innocent till proven guilty argument, detainment somehow stands in the way of that.
bluGill
This will be interesting for the 5th amendment. They cannot arrest you for putting "drug dealer" on your tax forms as your job since you are compelled to answer that question honestly. The defendant was compelled to appear in court which means he couldn't protect his own privacy by being elsewhere - are these the same thing?
I don't know how courts will see it, but it is an interesting legal question that I hope some lawyers run with.
staticman2
I'm not sure if this is intended to be a hypothetical but there is no IRS form where "Drug Dealer" is the correct answer.
Drug dealing income would be disclosed as "Other income".
If you volunteer "drug dealer" my guess is they could use it against you. Similar to showing up at FBI headquarters and shouting "I'm a drug dealer!"
zepton
Schedule C to Form 1040 (self-employment income) asks for your "Principal business or profession, including product or service". It's pretty clear that the only correct answer for some people would be something like "drug dealer".
staticman2
Unless I'm missing something you choose from a list of principal business Codes and also provide a description.
Unless "drug dealer" is one of those codes it's not an option to select that so that isn't the correct answer for code.
The instructions for the codes state, "Note that most codes describe more than one type of activity."
If you must provide a description as well you would provide one that describes more than 1 type of activity, not "drug dealer".
cbfrench
“Alternative Pharmaceuticals Purveyor”
QuercusMax
"Independent Entrepreneur"
toast0
> I'm not sure if this is intended to be a hypothetical but there is no IRS form where "Drug Dealer" is the correct answer.
What else would you put in the Occupation field at the end of the form?
staticman2
Merchant? Salesman? Deliveries? Distributor? Client services? Sales?
That field isn't actually used for anything other than determining if you are eligible for tax breaks like the school teacher deductable.
rjbwork
Independent Pharmaceutical Sales Consultant
amacbride
Import/Export Specialist
jandrese
Independent salesman.
null
tyre
I believe there is a space for bribery income
whats_a_quasar
This doesn't really have any fifth amendment implications. The prohibition against self incrimination reads "no person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."
That doesn't relate to being compelled to attend a proceeding in person where another federal agency can arrest you. If the government can legally arrest you, it does not matter if they determine your location based on another proceeding.
zdragnar
They cannot use your tax forms as evidence against you, but if there is a warrant for your arrest, they can arrest you wherever they find you. If there's a warrant for my arrest on suspicion of murder and I show up to court to argue a traffic ticket, of course they'll take me in on the murder charge too.
perihelions
- "They cannot use your tax forms as evidence against you,"
That's no longer true (in practice),
https://apnews.com/article/irs-ice-immigration-enforcement-t... ("IRS acting commissioner is resigning over deal to send immigrants’ tax data to ICE, AP sources say")
nashashmi
Do you know if an arrest warrant was issued? I don’t think ICE works on warrants
prepend
ICE works on “administrative warrants” that are different than “judicial warrants” [0]
I didn’t know the difference until today when I was reading about the case. I think the difference is the ice warrants are like detention orders and are different than a judge’s arrest warrant that grants a lot more power.
[0] https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/2025/04/23/what-is...
ggreer
Yes, an arrest warrant was issued. From the complaint[1]:
> On or about April 17, 2025, an authorized immigration official found probable cause to believe Flores-Ruiz was removable from the United States and issued a warrant for his arrest. The warrant provided, “YOU ARE COMMANDED to arrest and take into custody for removal proceedings under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the above-named alien [Flores-Ruiz identified on warrant].” Upon his arrest, Flores-Ruiz would be given a Notice of Intent/Decision to Reinstate Prior Order. He would then have an opportunity to contest the determination by making a written or oral statement to an immigration officer.
He'd been deported in 2013 and snuck back in some time later. He was in Milwaukee county court that day because he'd been charged with three counts of domestic battery.
1. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wied.11...
sanderjd
The thesis is that immigrants have no constitutional rights because they aren't citizens, or the stronger form, that they are invaders and thus enemy combatants.
The Supreme Court is going to have to clarify the existence or non-existence of constitutional rights for people living here unlawfully. And then the populace is going to have to make sure that the president doesn't conclude that he can ignore that ruling if he doesn't like it.
zzrrt
> The Supreme Court is going to have to clarify the existence or non-existence of constitutional rights for people living here unlawfully.
I'm not a lawyer, but... they already have for decades or centuries, and not in the direction that MAGA wants.
> “Yes, without question,” said Cristina Rodriguez, a professor at Yale Law School. “Most of the provisions of the Constitution apply on the basis of personhood and jurisdiction in the United States.”
> Many parts of the Constitution use the term “people” or “person” rather than “citizen.” Rodriguez said those laws apply to everyone physically on U.S. soil, whether or not they are a citizen.
[...]
> In the ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote “it is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings.”
Granted, only that last one is actually the Supreme Court. Perhaps there are hundreds of Supreme Court cases testing individual pieces of the constitution, but as the professor said, for the most part they give all the same rights. MAGA has managed to make everyone doubt and argue over it. The party of "Constitution-lovers" flagrantly violating both the plain wording and decades of legal rulings on the Constitution.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-constitutional-ri...
sanderjd
Yeah I don't doubt any of this myself. But the Court is still going to have to rule on it. Which isn't so weird. The Court has to reiterate rulings sometimes.
The thing that is unusual is that I have some genuine uncertainty around whether the current Justices will try to give the executive more leeway here than they should, as "compliance in advance" out of concern about their rulings being ignored by this administration.
Aeolun
On that basis tourists have no constitutional rights either. I find it hard to believe anyone would want to visit the US now, but surely that has an even further chilling effect.
sanderjd
To be clear, I agree. It's a dangerous thesis, but also just idiotic. They're doing a speed run of turning the US into North Korea, where nobody will want to travel here or trade with us.
axus
Axios was keeping a list, but I guess there's too many to keep track recently:
https://www.axios.com/2025/03/20/tourists-us-residents-detai...
ClumsyPilot
Is that a serious thesis anyone serious is entertaining ? Would that mean that you can defraud or kill a tourist with no consequences?
sanderjd
I mean I don't know if you consider the president of the United States "serious" (I certainly don't), but this is clearly his thesis.
const_cast
It's serious in that it's the primary reasoning the Trump administration is using for the lack of due process.
jibal
Your comment has no connection at all with this case.
HeatrayEnjoyer
>They cannot arrest you for putting "drug dealer" on your tax forms as your job since you are compelled to answer that question honestly.
They recently forced their way to into IRS records, so that is no longer true either.
nashashmi
But they wanted to get intel on suspected illegals. They just cannot use the data provided to the IRS as evidence. They have to get separate evidence.
_DeadFred_
This is not normal/acceptable in the US. I remember when parallel construction was thought of as a horrible/unacceptable violation of the Constitution in the US. Now the 'Constitution' party doesn't give AF and loves it. It's crazy how far we let slippery slopes take us. All because of convenience or 'it's not that big of a deal yet'.
saalweachter
Separate evidence for ...?
A key point here, which the judge brought up with the ICE agents, is that they only had an "administrative warrant".[1] An “ICE warrant” is not a real warrant. It is not reviewed by a judge or any neutral party to determine if it is based on probable cause. "An immigration officer from ICE or CBP may not enter any nonpublic areas—or areas that are not freely accessible to the public and hence carry a higher expectation of privacy—without a valid judicial warrant or consent to enter."[2]
The big distinction is that an administrative warrant does not authorize a search.
[1] https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/know-your-rights/know-your-r...
[2] https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/2025-Subpoen...