Trump DOJ Criticizes Judge’s Motion to Dismiss ICE Obstruction Case

MILWAUKEE, WI (June 11, 2025) — The Trump administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) has strongly opposed a motion filed by Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan to dismiss charges accusing her of obstructing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. The DOJ labeled the motion as a “manufactured version of judicial immunity,” arguing that granting such immunity would set a dangerous precedent.

Background of the Case

In April 2025, Judge Dugan allegedly assisted Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an undocumented immigrant facing domestic violence charges, in evading ICE agents at the Milwaukee County Courthouse. According to prosecutors, Dugan misled agents by suggesting a judicial warrant was required for their entry and facilitated Flores-Ruiz’s departure through a side exit. Flores-Ruiz was later apprehended on the street.

Dugan faces felony obstruction and misdemeanor concealing charges. Her legal team contends that she was performing her official duties as a judge and is therefore immune from prosecution, citing the 2024 Supreme Court decision Trump v. United States, which extended presidential immunity to certain official acts.

DOJ’s Response

The DOJ argues that granting judicial immunity in this case would undermine the principle that no one, including judges, is above the law. They assert that such a ruling would allow judges to interfere with valid law enforcement actions, potentially endangering public safety and the integrity of the judicial system.

Broader Implications

This case has drawn national attention, with over 130 retired judges filing an amicus brief supporting Dugan’s motion, warning that prosecuting judges for official acts could threaten judicial independence. Legal experts are closely monitoring the situation, as it may set a significant precedent regarding the scope of judicial immunity.

A federal judge is scheduled to hear arguments on the motion to dismiss on July 21, 2025. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive branch.