FBI Detains Second Democratic Judge in Under a Week on Charges of Aiding Undocumented Immigrant
In a dramatic escalation of its immigration‐enforcement efforts, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) announced on Friday the arrest of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan. She is accused of deliberately misleading federal officers during an operation to detain an undocumented immigrant hiding within the courthouse. This high‐profile detention comes only one week after a former New Mexico jurist was permanently removed from office following charges that he harbored a member of an international criminal organization. Together, these cases underscore the Trump administration’s intensified resolve to prosecute any public official—regardless of party affiliation—who is perceived to obstruct federal immigration law enforcement.
1. Background: A Surge in Immigration‐Related Arrests of Public Officials
Since President Donald Trump took office, his administration has repeatedly emphasized a “zero tolerance” approach toward illegal immigration. Beyond pursuing undocumented individuals themselves, federal authorities have increasingly targeted those alleged to have facilitated their continued presence in the United States. That enforcement push has now extended to members of the judiciary:
-
Joel Cano, a former New Mexico magistrate, was arrested last Thursday after investigators learned that he had allowed an alleged member of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua criminal gang to reside in a secondary family property. Cano subsequently resigned and was formally removed from judicial office, barred from ever holding or exercising judicial authority in New Mexico again.
-
Hannah Dugan, a sitting circuit judge in Milwaukee County, became the second jurist to fall under federal scrutiny when FBI agents executed an arrest warrant in her courtroom last Friday.
Legal experts caution that these actions raise complex questions about separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary, even as the administration insists that no official—whether a lawmaker, judge, or law‐enforcement officer—is above federal immigration laws.
2. The Joel Cano Case: Harboring a Suspected Gang Member
2.1 Arrest and Allegations
On Thursday, April 10, federal agents in New Mexico took Joel Cano into custody following an investigation into his alleged efforts to shelter Geraldo Pérez, identified by authorities as a member of Tren de Aragua—an organization designated by the Trump administration as a transnational terrorist group. Pérez, a Venezuelan national, was arrested in late March along with an undocumented companion, after both were discovered living at a second residence owned by Cano’s wife.
According to an FBI affidavit, Cano was aware that Pérez had been ordered removed by an immigration judge and nevertheless provided him lodging on multiple occasions. Federal prosecutors charged Cano with harboring and transporting an undocumented alien, violations of 8 U.S.C. §1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) and (ii), which carry significant fines and potential imprisonment.
2.2 Judicial Consequences
Following his arrest, Cano tendered his resignation, effective immediately. Within 48 hours, the New Mexico Supreme Court’s Judicial Standards Commission convened an emergency hearing, resulting in the swift and unanimous recommendation to remove Cano from the bench. The Commission’s order stated unequivocally:
“Justice Cano’s conduct—providing shelter to an individual known to be subject to a final order of removal—constitutes a clear breach of his duty to uphold the law and the integrity of the judiciary.”
Cano’s removal bars him from ever again holding or exercising judicial power in New Mexico, including the civil function of officiating marriages.
3. Judge Hannah Dugan’s Arrest: Obstruction in the Courthouse
3.1 Incident Overview
Last Friday morning, Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan convened a misdemeanor hearing for Eduardo Flores Ruiz, a 28‐year‐old native of Mexico facing accusations of driving without a valid license. After opening statements, court recessed for a brief break. As Flores Ruiz left the courtroom, unmarked FBI vehicles descended on the East State Street courthouse. Agents, led by ICE Supervisory Agent Brian Sullivan, approached Judge Dugan and demanded to speak with Flores Ruiz.
According to FBI Director Kash Patel, who detailed the operation in a statement posted to X (formerly Twitter):
“Judge Dugan intentionally misdirected federal agents away from the subject—Eduardo Flores Ruiz—allowing him to evade arrest within her courthouse. She provided false information regarding his whereabouts, obstructing an immigration arrest operation and endangering both agents and the public.”
Within an hour, Flores Ruiz was apprehended outside the courthouse by agents on foot, confirming the critical importance of timely detention in such scenarios.
3.2 Contempt of Court Citation
In a rare move, Circuit Judge Mark Summerville—presiding over a subsequent hearing—found Judge Dugan in contempt of court for her actions. Summerville emphasized the gravity of removing a defendant mid‐trial, noting:
“A defendant has an inviolable right to be present at every critical stage of his trial and to confront the witnesses against him. Judge Dugan’s conduct struck at the very heart of due process.”
Summerville dismissed the misdemeanor charge against Flores Ruiz, ruling that the government’s failure to maintain the defendant’s presence foreclosed any fair resolution of the case. The contempt citation has been forwarded to the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s office for potential criminal proceedings against Judge Dugan.
4. Legal Framework: Defending Due Process and Judicial Independence
4.1 Constitutional Protections
Under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, criminal defendants are guaranteed the right to:
-
Be present at their own trial, from jury selection through verdict.
-
Confront witnesses through cross‐examination, a fundamental confrontation clause safeguard.
-
Receive a fair and impartial hearing—a requirement that extends to maintaining judicial neutrality free from improper influence.
By allegedly misdirecting federal agents and facilitating the defendant’s temporary escape, Judge Dugan’s defenders argue she endangered these core rights. Critics of the administration’s aggressive approach, however, warn that criminalizing a judge’s attempt to shelter a vulnerable individual risks chilling legitimate judicial discretion.
4.2 Statutory Authority for Immigration Arrests
Since 2021, the Department of Homeland Security has rescinded the prior “sensitive locations” policy—originally established in 2011—which discouraged ICE enforcement at courthouses, schools, hospitals, and places of worship. Under the current guidelines:
-
ICE officers may effect arrests “in or near courthouses” if they possess “credible information” that a targeted noncitizen is present.
-
State or local laws that explicitly bar such enforcement can supersede this federal authority, a point of contention in so‐called sanctuary jurisdictions like Milwaukee.
Judge Summerville’s order underscores that, while ICE may have the authority to pursue undocumented individuals on courthouse grounds, no federal officer—agent or judge—may impede a defendant’s fundamental due‐process rights in the name of immigration enforcement.
5. Federal vs. Local Conflict: Sanctuary Policies Under Scrutiny
Milwaukee County—like the city of Boston and several other major U.S. cities—maintains policies limiting collaboration between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities:
-
Noncooperation Directives: Local police may not honor ICE detainer requests without a judicial warrant.
-
Judicial Statements: Courts have issued standing orders requiring any ICE operation in or near courthouses to secure prior judicial approval.
Proponents of sanctuary policies argue these measures:
-
Encourage public safety by ensuring immigrant communities report crimes without fear of deportation.
-
Preserve civil liberties by maintaining clear boundaries between criminal justice and immigration enforcement.
The Trump administration, by contrast, has repeatedly criticized sanctuary jurisdictions, accusing them of harboring criminals and endangering U.S. citizens. Both Judge Dugan’s detention and Judge Cano’s prosecution illustrate how federal officials are pressing this conflict to new frontiers—directly confronting local policies at the point of enforcement.
6. Reactions and Ramifications
6.1 Political Responses
-
Republican Leadership: Attorney General Merrick Garland—while now serving under President Biden—conducted an internal review of courthouse enforcement policies in 2021 but did not pursue cases against judiciary members. Under the Trump administration, however, allies lauded the arrests as proof that “no one is above the law.”
-
Judicial Community: The American Bar Association and state judicial associations have expressed concern over potential overreach, urging a careful balance between enforcing federal law and protecting the courts’ integrity.
-
Democratic Critics: Congressional Democrats have condemned the detentions as politically motivated, praising Judges Dugan and Cano for “upholding basic human rights” and accusing the administration of “weaponizing immigration enforcement to intimidate public servants.”
6.2 Legal Proceedings Ahead
-
Dugan’s Contempt Hearing: Milwaukee prosecutors will decide whether to file obstruction or contempt charges against Judge Dugan—a path that could involve misdemeanor or felony counts carrying fines and possible jail time.
-
Cano’s Harboring Case: New Mexico federal court will schedule Cano’s arraignment on harboring charges, with sentencing guidelines for similar offenses ranging from probation to multi‐year imprisonment.
7. Broader Implications for the Judiciary
These unprecedented detentions of sitting and former judges raise urgent questions:
-
Judicial Discretion vs. Federal Mandates: How should judges balance courtroom impartiality against moral or humanitarian considerations when encountering undocumented individuals?
-
Separation of Powers: To what extent may federal immigration officials intervene in state judicial processes—particularly without advance judicial approval?
-
Chilling Effect on Courtroom Participation: Will defendants, attorneys, or jurors hesitate to appear in court for fear of immigration enforcement actions?
Legal analysts warn that eroding the firewall that preserves courtroom fairness could imperil the public’s trust in the justice system—particularly among immigrant communities whose cooperation is vital for the rule of law.
8. Conclusion: Navigating Enforcement and Due Process
The arrests of Judges Joel Cano and Hannah Dugan mark a dramatic intensification of the federal government’s efforts to target those who allegedly assist undocumented immigrants—even when those individuals sit on the bench themselves. For the Trump administration, these high‐profile cases demonstrate an uncompromising stance: no public official is immune from immigration law.
Yet for civil‐liberties advocates, the prosecutions threaten to upend longstanding constitutional safeguards designed to ensure that every defendant, regardless of status, can access a fair trial. As both legal and political actors weigh the fallout, one question looms: how can U.S. courts preserve the independence and impartiality that form the bedrock of our justice system, even as they accommodate the vigorous enforcement of immigration statutes?
The coming months will test the elastic boundaries of judicial discretion, executive authority, and constitutional rights. Whatever the outcomes, the Dugan and Cano cases will reverberate far beyond Milwaukee and New Mexico—shaping the future relationship between federal immigration enforcement and America’s state and local judiciaries for years to come.
Adrian Hawthorne is a celebrated author and dedicated archivist who finds inspiration in the hidden stories of the past. Educated at Oxford, he now works at the National Archives, where preserving history fuels his evocative writing. Balancing archival precision with creative storytelling, Adrian founded the Hawthorne Institute of Literary Arts to mentor emerging writers and honor the timeless art of narrative.