MADISON, Wisconsin: A federal grand jury on Tuesday indicted a Wisconsin judge accused of helping a man evade immigration authorities, allowing the case against her to continue.
The arrest of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan escalated a clash between President Donald Trump’s administration and local authorities over the Republican’s sweeping immigration crackdown. Democrats have accused the Trump administration of trying to make a national example of Dugan to chill judicial opposition to the crackdown.
Prosecutors charged Dugan in April via complaint with concealing an individual to prevent arrest and obstruction. In the federal criminal justice system, prosecutors can initiate charges against a defendant directly by filing a complaint or present evidence to a grand jury and let that body decide whether to issue charges.
A grand jury still reviews charges brought by complaint to determine whether enough probable cause exists to continue the case as a check on prosecutors’ power. If the grand jury determines there’s probable cause, it issues a written statement of the charges known as an indictment. That’s what happened in Dugan’s case.
Her case is similar to one brought during the first Trump administration against a Massachusetts judge, who was accused of helping a man sneak out a courthouse back door to evade a waiting immigration enforcement agent. That case was eventually dismissed.
Prosecutors say Dugan escorted Eduardo Flores-Ruiz and his lawyer out of her courtroom through a back jury door on April 18 after learning that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were in the courthouse seeking his arrest.
According to court documents, Flores-Ruiz illegally reentered the US after being deported in 2013. Online state court records show he was charged with three counts of misdemeanor domestic abuse in Milwaukee County in March. He was in Dugan’s courtroom that morning of April 18 for a hearing.
Court documents suggest Dugan was alerted to the agents’ presence by her clerk, who was informed by an attorney that the agents appeared to be in the hallway. An affidavit says Dugan was visibly angry over the agents’ arrival and called the situation “absurd” before leaving the bench and retreating to her chambers. She and another judge later approached members of the arrest team in the courthouse with what witnesses described as a “confrontational, angry demeanor.”
After a back-and-forth with the agents over the warrant for Flores-Ruiz, Dugan demanded they speak with the chief judge and led them away from the courtroom, according to the affidavit.
She then returned to the courtroom and was heard saying words to the effect of “wait, come with me” and ushered Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out through a back jury door typically used only by deputies, jurors, court staff and in-custody defendants, according to the affidavit. Flores-Ruiz was free on a signature bond in the abuse case at the time, according to online state court records.
Federal agents ultimately captured him outside the courthouse after a foot chase.
The state Supreme Court suspended Dugan from the bench in late April, saying the move was necessary to preserve public confidence in the judiciary. A reserve judge is filling in for her.
Federal grand jury indicts Wisconsin judge in immigration case, allowing charges to continue
https://arab.news/9x2ay
Federal grand jury indicts Wisconsin judge in immigration case, allowing charges to continue
- Prosecutors charged Dugan in April via complaint with concealing an individual to prevent arrest and obstruction
London police using withdrawn powers to clamp down on pro-Palestine rallies: Probe
- ‘Cumulative disruption’ cited to ban, reroute rallies but power granted by concept withdrawn by Court of Appeal in May
- Network for Police Monitoring: This demonstrates ‘ongoing crackdown on protest’ that has reached ‘alarming point’
LONDON: London’s Metropolitan Police have used powers that have been withdrawn to clamp down on pro-Palestine rallies in the capital, legal experts have said.
The Guardian and Liberty Investigates obtained evidence that police officers had imposed restrictions on at least two protests based on the principle of “cumulative disruption.” But that power was withdrawn by the Court of Appeal in May, according to legal experts.
All references to cumulative disruption have been removed from relevant legislation, yet the Home Office and the Met continue to insist that police officers retain the power to consider the concept when suppressing protests.
On May 7, five days after the powers were withdrawn, the Met banned a Jewish pro-Palestine group from holding its weekly rally in north London, citing the cumulative impact on the neighborhood’s Jewish community.
Last month, the Met forced the Palestine Coalition to change the route of its rally on three days’ notice, highlighting the cumulative impact on businesses during Black Friday weekend.
Raj Chada, a partner at Hodge, Jones & Allen and a leading criminal lawyer, said: “There is no reference to cumulative disruption in the original (legislation). The regulations that introduced this concept were quashed in May 2025, so I fail to see how this can still be the approach taken by police. There is no legal basis for this whatsoever.”
The Met appeared “not to care” if it was acting within the law, the Network for Police Monitoring said, adding that the revelation surrounding “cumulative disruption” demonstrated an “ongoing crackdown on protest” that had reached an “alarming point” by police in London.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood announced plans in October to reintroduce the power to consider cumulative impact in toughened form.
But Nick Glynn, a retired senior officer from Leicestershire Police, said: “The police have too many protest powers already and they definitely don’t need any more. If they are provided with them, they not only use them (but) as in this case, they stretch them.
“They go beyond what was intended. The right to protest is sacrosanct and more stifling of protest makes democracy worth less.”
Cumulative disruption was regularly considered and employed in regulations if protests met the threshold of causing “serious disruption to the life of the community.”
The Court of Appeal withdrew the power following a legal challenge by human rights group Liberty.
Ben Jamal, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign’s director, was reportedly told by Alison Heydari, the Met’s deputy assistant commissioner, that her decision on imposing protest regulations “will be purely around the cumulative effect of your protests.”
She reportedly added that “this is not just about Saturday’s protest but it’s a combination of all the impacts of all the processions so far,” referencing “serious disruption” to the business community.
“You’ve used this route in November 2024, and you’ve used it a few times before then as well. So, there is an impact.”
The repeated disruption to PSC-hosted marches, the largest pro-Palestine events in London, was a “demobilizer,” Jamal said.
It also caused confusion about march starting points and led to protesters being harassed by police officers who accused them of violating protest conditions, he added.
A Met spokesperson told The Guardian: “The outcome of the judicial review does not prevent senior officers from considering the cumulative impact of protest on the life of communities.
“To determine the extent of disruption that may result from a particular protest, it is, of course, important to consider the circumstances in which that protest is to be held, including any existing disruption an affected community is already experiencing.
“We recognise the importance of the right to protest. We also recognise our responsibility to use our powers to ensure that protest does not result in serious disorder or serious disruption. We use those powers lawfully and will continue to do so.”
