FBI arrests judge accused of helping man evade immigration authorities
1004 points by eterps 2 months ago | 940 comments- Animats 2 months agoA 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...
- lolinder 2 months agoAnother 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 2 months agoThis 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 2 months ago> 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 2 months ago> 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.
That is what happen when there is no law, only power, and people act on it.
- kcplate 2 months ago> The administration is in open violation of supreme court rulings and the law.
But is this one of those situations? The problem I think people get stuck in the muck about is all these situations run together and they start assuming facts from one case apply to another.
Two things can be true— The Trump administration be in defiance of some other ruling related to immigration/deportation as well as being perfectly within the law for this particular case.
- Jensson 2 months agoThen 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.
- naijaboiler 2 months ago>>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.
You have just described a lot of US policing
- c_exclu 2 months ago[flagged]
- lolinder 2 months ago
- mrandish 2 months agoYes, 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.
- ocdtrekkie 2 months ago> The government has to prove intent here
Technically all the government has to do is get her on a plane to El Salvador in the middle of the night.
Which is to say, this arm of government has not followed any semblance of due process so far, and is currently defying a unanimous order of the Supreme Court even in a Republican supermajority, pretending due process is something they "have to" do is very much ignoring where we are.
- fc417fc802 2 months agoNotably the examples on the page you linked appear to involve illegal acts (tampering, threatening, etc). Letting someone out a different door (neither party is trespassing) doesn't seem to rise to that bar.
Just as I'm not obligated to call the police to report something I don't see how I can be obligated to force my guest to use a particular door for the convenience of the police. It isn't my responsibility to actively facilitate their actions.
It would never have occurred to me (and doesn't seem reasonable) that obstruction could involve indirect (relative to the government process) actions.
I could understand "aiding and abetting" if I was actively facilitating the commission of a crime but I don't want to live in a country where mere avoidance is considered a crime. "Arrested for resisting arrest" gets mocked for good reason.
- ivape 2 months agoThe 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 2 months ago[flagged]
- lolinder 2 months ago
- JumpCrisscross 2 months ago> 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.
- ImPostingOnHN 2 months ago[flagged]
- Jensson 2 months agoAlmost 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.
- c_exclu 2 months ago[flagged]
- Jensson 2 months ago
- hayst4ck 2 months ago
- Gabriel54 2 months agoThere 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.
- ajross 2 months agoIt 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.
- maxlybbert 2 months agoImmigration 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
- Jensson 2 months ago> 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.
- switch007 2 months ago> We used to be special.
Oh. Do expand.
- asdsadasdasd123 2 months ago[flagged]
- linksnapzz 2 months agoAs it turns out, hyperbole is not aside.
- maxlybbert 2 months ago
- 2 months ago
- lolinder 2 months agoThe 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 2 months ago
There's other questions tbh. I don't know the answers, but I think it is critical to point out.> 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...
- godelski 2 months ago
- pyuser583 2 months agoMy understanding is that you have an obligation to act lawfully, even if another person is not acting lawfully.
This why civil rights advocates say “don’t talk to the police.”
- ajross 2 months ago
- nonethewiser 2 months agoThat is key indeed. But I'm not sure if it's key for the reason you believe. Its not a big deal that they didnt have a search warrant - they stayed in public areas. But it helps prove the intent of the judge to aid the escape of Ruiz.
The judge specifically clarified the type of warrant with the agents when she learned they were there. Then she escorted Ruiz out a path that she knew they could not legally be in.
- s1artibartfast 2 months agoHow 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 2 months ago> [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 2 months agoThe 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.
- lolinder 2 months ago
- TrackerFF 2 months agoIf 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 2 months agoIf 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 2 months ago> 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.
- lolinder 2 months ago
- sasmithjr 2 months ago
- insane_dreamer 2 months agoIf ICE wasn't legally authorized to search the premises or arrest the man, then the judge wasn't "obstructing" his arrest.
- Jensson 2 months agoThey 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 2 months agoFBI should review thier fieldwork, alternate entrance/exits, must be secured or under watch, before the approach.
- insane_dreamer 2 months agoBut they didn't have a valid warrant for arrest. Therefore him going out the back door was not "escaping arrest".
- rolph 2 months ago
- Jensson 2 months ago
- downrightmike 2 months agoKey point is the Feds aren't obeying the law
- lenkite 2 months agoWhich law aren't they obeying ?
- lenkite 2 months ago
- nonethewiser 2 months agoThat is key indeed. She specifically clarified the type of warrant then escorted Ruiz out a path that she knew they could not legally be in.
- rufus_foreman 2 months ago>> An “ICE warrant” is not a real warrant
False.
- os2warpman 2 months agoAn ICE warrant is for civil offenses.
Like operating a non-conforming radio transmitter.
If my buddy is in my backyard blasting out Freebird 24x7 on a transmitter that can reach 201 feet instead of the unlicensed maximum of 200 feet and the FCC knocks on my door looking for him and I tell them to go fuck themselves, should I be arrested?
- rufus_foreman 2 months ago>> If my buddy is in my backyard blasting out Freebird 24x7 on a transmitter that can reach 201 feet instead of the unlicensed maximum of 200 feet and the FCC knocks on my door looking for him and I tell them to go fuck themselves, should I be arrested?
I don't know. Is an FCC warrant like an ICE warrant? If so, then you don't have to open the door. You can probably tell them to fuck themselves, but that's probably not a good idea.
You can't obstruct their investigation. You can't conceal what your neighbor is doing. You can't tell the FCC that your neighbor doesn't have a transmitter, or that it only reaches 200 feet when you know that that it reaches farther than that. Those are crimes, in my admittedly limited understanding of the situation.
An ICE warrant is not a search warrant. ICE did not need a search warrant in this case. They needed a warrant to arrest a named person they had probable cause to believe was in the country illegally. It appears they did in fact have that warrant. It was a real warrant. And if they facts in the ICE criminal complaint are true, this is a textbook case of someone obstructing that arrest.
- rufus_foreman 2 months ago
- os2warpman 2 months ago
- lolinder 2 months ago
- kemayo 2 months ago> 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 2 months ago1. 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 2 months agoI 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 2 months ago> 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 2 months agoThat 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 2 months ago> 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.
- adolph 2 months ago> 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.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wied.11...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.
- alabastervlog 2 months agoSuccessful 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.
- willis936 2 months ago[flagged]
- pjc50 2 months ago
- ldoughty 2 months agoAccording 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 2 months agoIf 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.
- ivape 2 months agoI'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.
- lostdog 2 months agoThe feds have been lying in their court filings for the past few months, so don't take their complaint at face value.
- mjburgess 2 months ago
- mullingitover 2 months agoI'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 2 months ago> 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 2 months agoYou'll be happy to know, then, that the judge was released on her own recognizance.
- tbrownaw 2 months ago
- Gabriel54 2 months agoDid 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 2 months ago"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
- ImPostingOnHN 2 months ago
- wonderwonder 2 months ago"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
- lolinder 2 months agoWhat'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.
- kemayo 2 months ago
- silisili 2 months agoThis 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.
- JumpCrisscross 2 months agoUnder 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 2 months agowhy 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 2 months ago> 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 2 months agohttps://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 2 months agoand something tells me the side that spent decades demonizing firearm ownership probably can't win an arms race against their ideological opponents.
- JumpCrisscross 2 months ago
- southernplaces7 2 months agoYes 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 2 months agoMaybe those groups are better at disguising themselves.
- senderista 2 months agoI guess you weren't there for the CHOP, where there were masked antifa wandering around with AR-15s and intimidating business owners.
- djeastm 2 months ago
- mindslight 2 months agoWe've got National Guards under the command of state governors for a reason. Just sayin'.
- dragonwriter 2 months ago> 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.)
- dragonwriter 2 months ago
- gosub100 2 months agoWhy don't you organize one?
- JumpCrisscross 2 months ago> 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 2 months agoIt is illegal in all 50 states to organize a militia.
- JumpCrisscross 2 months ago
- esbranson 2 months ago[flagged]
- lolinder 2 months agoParty 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 2 months agoPlease read up on the Dunning Kruger effect.
- lolinder 2 months ago
- s1artibartfast 2 months agoThe 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.
- dylan604 2 months ago
- adolph 2 months ago> 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.
Do you have any evidence of this claim? The FBI affidavit says they were waiting in the public hallway outside, let the bailiff know what they were doing and did not enter the courtroom. The judge did not find out until a public defender took pictures of the arrest team and brought it to the attention of the judge. Maybe the FBI lied, but that seems unlikely given the facts would seem eventually verifiable by security video and uninvolved witness statements.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wied.11...Members of the arrest team reported the following events after Judge DUGAN learned of their presence and left the bench. Judge DUGAN and Judge A, who were both wearing judicial robes, approached members of the arrest team in the public hallway.
- Larrikin 2 months ago[flagged]
- adolph 2 months agoIf vibes based epistemology works for you, great. Otherwise, it's my username because it's my birth name, feel free to complain to them or consider the Shel Silverstein and Johnny Cash song about a boy's name.
The source link is there for anyone to assess validity and I acknowledge in the comment that the FBI isn't an unimpeachable source. It also isn't so totally careless that an agent would make an affidavit for something that can easily be proven untrue under light scrutiny.
- adolph 2 months ago
- Larrikin 2 months ago
- FireBeyond 2 months ago> 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.
I used to work as a paramedic. We’d frequently be called to the local tribal jail which had a poor reputation. People would play sick to get out of there for a few hours. If the jail staff thought they were faking and they were due for release in the next week or so, they’d “release” them while we were doing an assessment and tell them “you are getting the bill for this not us” (because in custody the jail is responsible for medical care). Patient would duly get in our ambulance and a few minutes down the road and “feel better”, and request to be let out.
The first time this happened my partner was confused. “We need to stop them” - no, we don’t, and legally can’t. “We need to tell the jail so they can come pick them back up” - no, the jail made the choice to release them, they are no longer in custody and free to go.
This caught on very quickly with inmates and for a while was happening a couple of times a day before the jail figured out the deal and stopped releasing people early.
- Centigonal 2 months agoWhat 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 2 months agoIt's not related to legal proceedings, so, no.
The point of the arrest is to pressure judges into illegally doing it anyway.
- rolph 2 months agoyou 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.
- lliamander 2 months agoThe right move would have been simply to not help Flores-Ruiz evade ICE.
- mulmen 2 months agoAllegedly.
- mulmen 2 months ago
- dfxm12 2 months agoAccording to ICE? "Comply with whatever we say". It's obvious that the current admin is operating autocratically, outside the law.
- marcusverus 2 months agoHe 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 2 months agoI 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.
- Centigonal 2 months ago
- eterps 2 months agoMy thoughts exactly.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2 months agoJudges 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.
- crooked-v 2 months ago
- spamizbad 2 months agoThis to me seems like a completely lawful act on the part of the judge?
- ajross 2 months ago> 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.
No, that is the excuse. They found a technicality on which they could arrest her, so they arrested her because they wanted to arrest her. Needless to say people don't get tried on this kind of "look the other way" "obstruction" as a general rule. This case is extremely special.
It is abundantly clear that this arrest was made for political reasons, as part of a big and very obvious public policy push.
- gazebo64 2 months ago> They found a technicality on which they could arrest her, so they arrested her because they wanted to arrest her
If by technicality you mean correctly identifying that the judge intentionally adjourned the suspect's court proceedings and directed them through a non-public exit in order to evade a lawful deportation of a domestic abuser who had already been deported once, yes, it was a "technicality". The short form would be to acknowledge the judge intentionally interfered with a lawful deportation, which is a crime, thus the arrest.
- ajross 2 months agoHold up, all that stuff is completely unattested (and would have to be facts tried before a jury anyway). ICE does not have the power to decide on whether someone is a "domestic abuser" or whatever. They were just serving a warrant.
But more: What if the suspect was in court on an immigration concern? The judge would have been empowered to enjoin the deportation, no? You agree, right? That's what courts do? In which case, wouldn't the ICE agents be the ones guilty of "obstruction" here?
The point of the Rule of Law is that you don't empower individuals to make decisions about justice, ever. You try things before courts, and appeal, and eventually get to a resolution.
Trying to do anything else leads to exactly where we are here, where one arm of government is performatively arresting members of another for baldly partisan reasons.
- ajross 2 months ago
- gazebo64 2 months ago
- tedivm 2 months agoThe ICE agents didn't have a warrant, so the judge was under no legal obligation to say anything to them at all.
- dionian 2 months agoaccording to this story, they had a warrant: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2025/04/23/ice-...
- tedivm 2 months agoAccording 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 2 months agonote 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]
- tedivm 2 months ago
- dionian 2 months ago
- duxup 2 months agoDoesn'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....
- Jtsummers 2 months ago> 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 2 months agoTo 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 2 months agoBut judges can be arrested for doing nothing illegal to intimidate and bully them into not acting based on settled law.
- 2 months ago
- 542354234235 2 months ago
- csomar 2 months ago> 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 2 months agoICE 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.
- KennyBlanken 2 months ago
- jandrese 2 months agoI 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 2 months agowhile 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.
- dylan604 2 months ago
- analog31 2 months agoFor all the judge could have known, the agents weren't coming back.
- s1artibartfast 2 months agoThe 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 2 months agoThat 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).
- Jtsummers 2 months ago
- KennyBlanken 2 months agoImmigration 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 2 months agoI 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.
- prepend 2 months ago
- whats_a_quasar 2 months ago
- armchairhacker 2 months agoThis sounds like a case in Trump’s first term. I don’t condone the arrest, but to provide context:
> In April [2019], [Shelley Joseph] and a court officer, Wesley MacGregor, were accused of allowing an immigrant to evade detention by arranging for him to sneak out the back door of a courthouse. The federal prosecutor in Boston took the highly unusual step of charging the judge with obstruction of justice…
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/16/us/shelley-joseph-immigra... (https://archive.ph/gByeV)
EDIT: Although Shelly Joseph wasn’t arrested, only charged.
- kemayo 2 months agoI don't think we've got enough information to say how similar it is. That one sounds like it hung on Joseph actively helping the immigrant to take an unusual route out. If this judge just sent the agents off for their permission then wrapped things up normally and didn't get involved beyond that, I can't see this going anywhere.
There's a lot of room for details-we-don't-yet-know to change that opinion, of course.
- rectang 2 months agoAccording to a "sources say" quote from a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article published two days ago:
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2025/04/23/ice-...
> 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.
- rectang 2 months ago
- kemayo 2 months ago
- phendrenad2 2 months agoSounds like some lower-level ICE agents screwed up, and let the subject get away, and they're trying to redirect blame to the judge. I doubt this will stick, barring any new info on what happened.
- euroderf 2 months agoGoing from "redirect blame" to "make an arrest" is a significant escalation.
- ceejayoz 2 months agoThat's the main tactic this administration uses, isn't it? Double down, never admit fault, get into a giant trade war with the rest of the world...
- ceejayoz 2 months ago
- phendrenad2 2 months agoLooks like I was wrong. For some reason I wasn't aware the that judge smuggled the subject out through the back door that goes through the judge's chambers, which typically judges avoid allowing the general public into, because it implies improper fraternization between a judge and someone involved in court cases.
- euroderf 2 months ago
- euroderf 2 months agoIANAL but... The agents had no official role in the proceedings, and if they did not request one, then they have the status of courtroom observers (little difference from courtroom back row voyeurs) and they can go jump in a lake.
- rustcleaner 2 months ago>you can't lie to the feds
We really need a court case or law passed that says a stalked animal has the right to run (lie) without further punishment resulting from the act of running (lying). Social Contract™, and "you chose it" gaslighty nonsense aside, the state putting someone in a concrete camp for years, or stealing decades worth of savings, is violence even if blessed-off religiously by a black-robed blesser. Running from and lying to the police to preserve one's or one's family's liberty should be a given fact of the game, not additional "crimes."
We also need to abolish executions except for oath taking elected office holders convicted of treason, redefine a life sentence as 8 years and all sentencing be concurrent across all layers of state, and put a sixteen year post hoc time limit on custodial sentences (murder someone 12 years ago and get a "life sentence" today as a result? -> 4 years max custody). Why? Who is the same person after a presidential administration? What is a 25+ year sentence going to do to restore the victims' losses? If you feel that strongly after 8 years that it should have been 80, go murder the released perp and serve your 8!
The point is to defang government; it has become too powerful in the name of War on _______, and crime has filled the blank really nicely historically.
- 2 months ago
- wonderwonder 2 months ago"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 clearly facilitating escape and interfering with law enforcement. "Private" is the key word here.
- timewizard 2 months ago> not telling the ICE agents where the person was or giving them the wrong information about their location.
Officers of the court have a higher responsibility to report the truth and cooperate with official processes than regular citizens.
- dudeinjapan 2 months agoUmm… why didn’t the agents just wait patiently until the proceeding was done?
- pseudo0 2 months agoThey did, read the complaint: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wied.11...
The judge got upset that they were waiting in the public hallway outside the courtroom.
- mmooss 2 months agoOne side alleges that, to be clear. We haven't heard the judge's version, heard from witnesses, seen evidence, nor had it adjudicated.
- lincon127 2 months agoReading through that, it does seem like a very hasty decision on the judge's part. But then again, I don't know what else you're supposed to do if you think the warrant for the arrest is based on an unjust premise (Which Dugan presumably thought, otherwise I have no idea why she'd act the way she did). This does make it pretty clear that the arrest of the judge is justified, unless there are some special provisions for judges that I'm unaware of that allow judges to be exempt from title 18 code 1071 and code 1505, which is entirely possible since the most relevant thing about US law I know is jurisprudence. Barring that possibility, what should be more on the top of everyone's minds is how this is resolved in court.
- mmooss 2 months ago
- duxup 2 months agoIt does seem like they could have gotten what they wanted by just trying to do their job a little more such as, waiting.
- ceejayoz 2 months agoI don't think I've ever encountered a CBP employee I'd describe as "patient".
- rolph 2 months agoLEOs are trained to "be the one in control"
- pseudo0 2 months ago
- dlachausse 2 months ago[flagged]
- 2 months ago
- potato3732842 2 months agothe unusual thing here is that they're using them against a reasonably politically-connected person who's not their main target.
This is a pissing match between authorities. ICE has their panties in a knot that the judge didn't "respect muh authoriah" and do more than the bare leglal minimum for them (which resulted in the guy getting away). On the plus side, one hopes judge will have a pretty good record going forward when it comes to matters of local authorities using the process to abuse people.
>(They're normally akin to the "we got Al Capone for tax evasion" situation --
Something that HN frequently trots out as a good thing and the system working as intended. Where are those people now? Why are they so quiet?
>someone they were going after, where they couldn't prove the main crime, but they could prove that they lied about other details.)
And for every Al there's a dozen Marthas, people who actually didn't do it but the feds never go away empty handed.
- kevin_thibedeau 2 months agoShe was convicted for lying, not for the trading.
- potato3732842 2 months agoThat was exactly what I meant by "the feds don't go away empty handed".
She didn't actually do the thing they went after her for so they found some checkbox to nab her on rather than admit defeat.
- potato3732842 2 months ago
- kylehotchkiss 2 months ago"respect muh authoriah"
ICE officers seem like the ones that couldn't make it through police academy and had no other career prospects. Much like the average HOA, these are people who relish in undeserved power they didn't have to earn.
As a society, we owe it to ourselves to make sure people whom we give a lot of power to actually work and earn it.
- kevin_thibedeau 2 months ago
- mjburgess 2 months ago
- jawiggins 2 months agoThe 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 2 months agoThanks - I've changed the URL to that article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/04/25/... above.
- crooked-v 2 months agoI 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 2 months agoUnited 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 2 months ago>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.
- jasonlotito 2 months agoSo, based on the affidavit and the facts presented in the article, we know this doesn't apply to the Judge.
- gosub100 2 months agoThe 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.
- ein0p 2 months agoA 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.
- mrguyorama 2 months ago
- lolinder 2 months agoWhat'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.
- phendrenad2 2 months agoYou bring up an important point - laws and morality are not equivalent, and often differ. I wish people on HN would get that through their thick skulls and stop downvoting people for saying that a law was broken, if they think the law is invalid. The downvote button is not the ballot box where you vote on which laws you support.
- phendrenad2 2 months ago
- dionian 2 months agothere is usually only one exit to a courtroom, in the back
- crooked-v 2 months agoNo, there are usually several entrances/exits, such as for jurors, prisoners, judge's chambers, and the general public.
- crooked-v 2 months ago
- xyzzy9563 2 months agoIt's a crime to harbor or aid illegals in evading federal authorities. So this is a legal obligation of every person.
- neilpointer 2 months agoit's also unconstitutional to deny people due process but that's clearly been disregarded by the current administration. Reap what you sow.
- insane_dreamer 2 months agoExcept 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.)
- DrillShopper 2 months ago[flagged]
- neilpointer 2 months ago
- lurk2 2 months ago
- bix6 2 months agoFrom 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?
- Miner49er 2 months agoHow in the world is this an arrestable offense. Escorting someone out of a room?
- lolinder 2 months agoIf 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 2 months agoThe 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 2 months agoI 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.
- AIPedant 2 months ago
- 2 months ago
- lolinder 2 months ago
- euroderf 2 months agoThere has to be precedents in case law for how to assess this.
- trollied 2 months agoYou might want to read this https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/sanctuary--supremacy--h...
- trollied 2 months ago
- xpe 2 months agoSee 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)
- dang 2 months ago
- cactacea 2 months agoICE 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 2 months agoNailed 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 2 months agoExcept 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 2 months ago[dead]
- morkalork 2 months ago
- thrance 2 months agoA sane argument against an insane position. Republicans are perfectly fine with unpunished violence against non-citizens. No wonder tourism is sharply declining.
- nonethewiser 2 months agoState court houses are public. They arrested him in public. Why are state courthouses trying to protect illegal aliens?
- timewizard 2 months ago> 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 2 months ago> 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 2 months agoIn 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 2 months ago> 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.
- timewizard 2 months ago
- mulmen 2 months ago
- Hojojo 2 months ago[flagged]
- spacemadness 2 months agoPeople 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.
- spacemadness 2 months ago
- lliamander 2 months ago[flagged]
- km144 2 months agoYour 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 2 months ago[flagged]
- lliamander 2 months ago
- fzeroracer 2 months agoPeople 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 2 months agoI'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.
- lliamander 2 months ago
- cactacea 2 months agoYou have completely missed the point of my comment.
- lliamander 2 months agoNo, 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.
- lliamander 2 months ago
- km144 2 months ago
- nonethewiser 2 months agoState court houses are public. They arrested him in public. Why are state courthouses trying to protect illegal aliens? Ones that are being tried for battery no less.
- s1artibartfast 2 months agoConsider 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 2 months agoYou'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...
- dmix 2 months agoThe court hallways are considered public property so it's basically a debate on cultural semantics, not a legal one. The federal gov probably has inventive to not deter people showing up at state courts. But the federal gov is also pretty notorious for caring more about their own cases than the potential issues created for other levels of government.
- dmix 2 months ago
- tmiku 2 months ago
- kstrauser 2 months ago
- EnPissant 2 months agoSequence of events according to the criminal complaint[1]:
1. ICE obtained and brought an administrative immigration warrant to arrest Flores-Ruiz after his 8:30 a.m. state-court hearing in Courtroom 615 (Judge Dugan’s court).
2. Agents informed the courtroom deputy of their plan and waited in the public hallway. A public-defender attorney photographed them and alerted Judge Dugan.
3. Judge Dugan left the bench, confronted the agents in the hallway, angrily insisted they needed a judicial warrant, and ordered them to see the Chief Judge. Judge A (another judge) escorted most of the team away. One DEA agent remained unnoticed.
4. Returning to her courtroom, Judge Dugan placed Flores-Ruiz in the jury box, then personally escorted him and his attorney through the locked jury-door into non-public corridors: an exit normally used only for in-custody defendants escorted by deputies.
5. The prosecutor (ADA) handling the case was present, as were the victims of the domestic violence charges. However, the case was never called on the record, and the ADA was never informed of the adjournment.
6. Flores-Ruiz and counsel used a distant elevator, exited on 9th Street, and walked toward the front plaza. Agents who had just left the Chief Judge’s office spotted them. When approached, Flores-Ruiz sprinted away.
7. After a brief foot chase along State Street, agents arrested Flores-Ruiz at 9:05 a.m., about 22 minutes after first seeing him inside.
[1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69943125/united-states-...
- djoldman 2 months agoThe 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 2 months agoTo 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 2 months agoKash 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.
- Maxious 2 months agoThe judges impeding ICE scenarios has been portrayed on fictional TV too https://thegoodwife.fandom.com/wiki/Day_485
- typeofhuman 2 months ago[flagged]
- genter 2 months ago[flagged]
- genter 2 months ago
- Maxious 2 months ago
- jandrese 2 months agoCan 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 2 months agoFederal agents probably don’t worry too much about being in local misdemeanor court.
- kasey_junk 2 months ago
- fencepost 2 months agoI'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.
- giraffe_lady 2 months agoPublic 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.
- Kapura 2 months agoIt 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 2 months ago> 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 2 months ago> 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.
- masklinn 2 months ago
- whats_a_quasar 2 months agoNo, 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.
- legitster 2 months ago
- bix6 2 months agoMilwaukee journal is providing great coverage: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/breaking/2025/04/25/milw...
- rahimnathwani 2 months agoThe 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 2 months agoThanks, affidavit is worth the read. https://apnews.com/article/immigration-judge-arrested-799718...
- rahimnathwani 2 months ago
- rahimnathwani 2 months ago
- bix6 2 months ago
- legitster 2 months agoA 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 2 months agoThe 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 2 months agoThe 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.
- legitster 2 months ago
- 2 months ago
- DrillShopper 2 months ago
- rahimnathwani 2 months ago
- kstrauser 2 months agoPart 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 2 months agoThere'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 2 months agoUndocumented 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 2 months ago> 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 2 months agoSo you are in favor of rehabilitation but you want to gatekeep it?
Undocumented immigrants are taxpayers.
- kristjansson 2 months ago
- noemit 2 months agoFunny 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 2 months agoThat is a very simple explanation to an obviously more complex issue.
- sarlalian 2 months ago
- trhway 2 months ago> 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 2 months agoI 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 2 months agoHas it?
Are you guessing or are you positive?- 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
- godelski 2 months ago
- pcthrowaway 2 months ago
- hypeatei 2 months agoThis 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 2 months ago> 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 2 months agoI think some are missing the sarcasm. I enjoyed your comment at least.
- hypeatei 2 months ago
- anonfordays 2 months ago[flagged]
- godelski 2 months ago
Actually, I disagree[0].> 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.
Wait, sorry, let me use code for the deafConditioned that you have not determined someone is an illegal immigrant: _______What do you want to happen here? _________________
Am I missing something? Seems like you could be completely selfish, hate illegal immigrants, AND benefit through policies of Sanctuary Cities and giving them TINs. How is that last one even an argument? It's "free" money.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:
Just a note. This has been tested in courts and there's plenty of writings from the founders themselves, both of which would evidence that the rights are to everyone (the latter obviously influencing the former). It's not hard to guess why. See the "alternative solution" in my linked comment... It's about the `person.citizenStatus == unknown` case....> the bill of rights only applies to citizens
- throwawayqqq11 2 months agoThis 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.
- throwawayqqq11 2 months ago
- ClumsyPilot 2 months ago
- Gabriel54 2 months agoWhat 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 2 months agoThis 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 2 months ago> 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 2 months ago> 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.)
- 2 months ago
- 2 months ago
- Gabriel54 2 months ago
- mmanfrin 2 months ago> 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 2 months agoI 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 2 months ago
No rule can be so well written that it covers all possible exceptions. Programmers of all people should be abundantly aware of this fact. We deal with it every single day. But I do mean fact, it is mathematically rigorous.> 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.
- Gabriel54 2 months ago
- crote 2 months agoShould 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.
- dbspin 2 months agoThe 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 2 months agoI 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.
- petre 2 months ago
- ClumsyPilot 2 months agoI am still waiting for a “corporations are people” to get death penalty
- gortok 2 months ago
- rufus_foreman 2 months ago>> 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 2 months ago>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 2 months agoSo 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?
- trhway 2 months ago
- timewizard 2 months agoReplace 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 2 months ago> 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.
- timewizard 2 months ago> And no one is asking the relevant authorities to ignore their duties to enforce immigration policy.
I take a look at Los Angeles policy, which was recently ensconced into law, and it does specifically require authorities to ignore their duties. It even requires them to interfere in them.
They cannot, even if if they incidentally know a persons immigration status, contact immigration authorities with that information. If the immigration authorities find out anyways they are required to prevent those authorities from even _interviewing_ the subject let alone take them into custody. If requested to participate in any sort of joint operation they must decline just because it's the federal immigration authorities.
> and that they'd prefer to have the rest of the apparatus of government function
If that were the case then only the first restriction above would need to exist. Instead they literally provide an active shield against any enforcement of these federal laws and directly interfere with that function.
> for undocumented people.
If the city is so willing to shield this class of people from federal immigration enforcement then why aren't they also willing to then document them on their own terms? It seems inappropriate and careless to me and leaves these people in a slightly worse place than they were without the sanctuary status. It also makes it look like their primary concern is frustrating federal law and not truly caring for a desperate class of people.
- timewizard 2 months ago
- hackable_sand 2 months agoImmigration isn't a crime though...
- kristjansson 2 months ago
- thuanao 2 months agoI want "sanctuary cities" because the whole idea of "illegal" people is tyrannical and inhumane.
- onetimeusename 2 months agoThat 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 2 months agoDepends 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.
- kstrauser 2 months ago
- godelski 2 months agoThis. 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.
- tintor 2 months ago[flagged]
- andrewstuart2 2 months agoIn an ideal world, maybe that's how it would work. In reality, that's not how it works or likely ever will work. So the comment you're replying to is a pragmatic approach to "how do we make the world we actually live in, not some idealized fantasy, safer?"
- 2 months ago
- IncreasePosts 2 months agoIn reality, Trump's tough on illegal immigrants approach has drastically reduced the number of illegal border crossings compared to Biden's term.
So, it seems that "people living in the country illegally" doesn't have to just be a fact of life, if there are federal policy changes that can radically alter the number of people who illegally enter the country.
- 2 months ago
- trhway 2 months ago>It is not fair to all other documented immigrants.
As a properly documented immigrant i have no such feelings.
I've got great education, good job. Most of those poor illegals didn't have such luck, so if anything, the life is not fair to them, not to me.
- goatlover 2 months agoYou ever consider what's fair to the undocumented, given the likelihood they're fleeing bad conditions in their home country? I'd be fine with providing them documentation without fear of deportation since they're already here. But I don't think that's what one political party currently in power wants to do.
- andrewstuart2 2 months ago
- billy99k 2 months ago[flagged]
- bdelmas 2 months agoI am going to be downvoted to oblivion but sanctuary cities for what you are saying is like a monkey patch in code. It "works" for now but it's not a long-term viable solution. A person breaking the law and be fine to be a criminal to be in a country is already the wrong mindset. And these persons are only at step 1 in a life in the US. What happens when life will be tough later are they now magically going to stop all criminal solutions? Their solution to be in the US was already to break the law.
Thankfully there are already laws to protect people being persecuted, in danger, people needing asylum, etc... We need even better laws in these areas and improvements in witness protection laws for a part of your example. But again sanctuary cities "work" for now but it is not a long-term solution. Beyond attracting criminals, it also creates a weird lawful oxymoron at the opposite of the rule of the law. (And again, there are things like asylum, etc...)
- nemomarx 2 months agoSure, we should also reform immigration and make the legal pathways better and more accessible to attract citizens
but cities have no ability to control that, while they can impact some things locally, so it's different groups of people doing both of these?
- bdelmas 2 months agoTo be honest, for me personally having cities that have that much power is weird to me. It should be something at the state or federal level. But as a counterargument: if this is not monkey patching, why not create a full sanctuary state? Sounds scary to me.
We need better laws. Current laws are also in place because it's just easier and works for now. Like instead of redoing visas and how they are processed for the 1M undocumented persons working in agriculture (that's 40% of ag workers!), people are fine with how things are now and also can justify to give lower unlawful salaries. Like this state is also bad for undocumented people too. They can just be taken advantage of and fired/used/disregarded when their managers want to...
Solutions that go against the rule of the law are overall a very bad idea for everyone.
- bdelmas 2 months ago
- jmull 2 months agoAn aside: “monkey patch” doesn’t mean what you think it means.
More on topic… crimes aren’t all the same, and the willingness of a person to commit one kind of crime doesn’t necessarily mean they are willing to commit another kind of crime.
For example, a large proportion of drivers in the US break the law every time they drive, from speeding to rolling stops, etc. By your standard all of these people are criminals who we can expect to keep reaching for “criminal solutions”. Why shouldn’t we imprison or deport all such people? Or at least take away their driver’s licenses and cars?
- bdelmas 2 months agoOh yes you are right for monkey patch, I don't why it means something else where I am from.
On the topic, sure. But maybe next time you go to another country, try to think how you would stay and break the law. Later, you will need a car, a bank account (by stealing a social security number or other solutions). Like how you are getting yourself ready to live a life of breaking the law just to go by in life. That's a series of life-changing events you have to be ready to go through. And yes you can go to prison because yo go too fast on a highway but to me it's really something else.
- lostmsu 2 months agoOf the options you mentioned the law only prescribes taking away driver licenses AFAIK. And you could, see no problem with that.
- bdelmas 2 months ago
- trhway 2 months ago>What happens when life will be tough later
are you sure that their life wasn't much tougher before they came here?
- SimbaOnSteroids 2 months agoCalling it a crime vastly overstates what the offense is. Entering in the country illegally is a misdemeanor, when you call them criminals you rhetorically frame it as a serious offense like a felony. Its disingenuous.
- dragonwriter 2 months ago> Being in the country illegally is a misdemeanor
No, its not.
Entering the country illegally is at least a misdemeanor (can be a felony depending on specific details), but being in the country illegally is not, itself, a crime, and it is possible to be in the country illegally without entering illegally.
- bdelmas 2 months agoLet's be real, are we talking about that one guy on vacation who missed his flight and is now staying longer than his visa and being de facto an undocumented person too? Or another type of profile? Like someone who did it knowingly and actively wanting to stay unlawfully? Yes there are different cases that encompass the definition but I think we can agree that we are not talking about cases like the guy on vacation.
- belorn 2 months agoThat is technical correct use of the legal term. A crime is an illegal act for which the punishment include prison. A person who lack permission to stay in a country faces deportation and ban/restriction on future visa applications, but not prison. Thus it is not a crime.
- dragonwriter 2 months ago
- nemomarx 2 months ago
- openasocket 2 months ago
- eterps 2 months ago> 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...
- acdha 2 months ago
- trelane 2 months agoThis is a much, much more informative source. Thanks!
- trelane 2 months ago
- openasocket 2 months agoAt 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 2 months agoArticle 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...
- sixothree 2 months agoAre these the agents that were recorded last week not wearing uniforms and not presenting identification?
- dmix 2 months agoThat still sounds pretty vague.
- openasocket 2 months agoDevil 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 2 months agoOr 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 2 months ago> 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 2 months agoThat 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.
- JumpCrisscross 2 months ago
- sixothree 2 months ago
- bloopernova 2 months ago[flagged]
- ericras 2 months agoNo one is above the law.
- TheOtherHobbes 2 months agoNo 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
- bananapub 2 months agoI'm sorry, have you been in a coma the last 8 - 50 years?
- MyOutfitIsVague 2 months agoHow 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 2 months agoExcept the ones the Supreme Court says are.
- timeon 2 months agoHow about president with felonies?
- cosmicgadget 2 months agoStrictly true but practically false. SCOTUS decided in Trump v. United States that core Article II actions by the president are completely above the law. Official actions are presumed to be immune from criminal liability. Non-official acts are not immune but get a free trip up to SCOTUS for adjudication before any trial can start. The one exception is if Congress impeaches.
- MiguelHudnandez 2 months agoIf only that were true
- baby_souffle 2 months ago> No one is above the law.
unimaginable wealth has entered the chat...
- TheOtherHobbes 2 months ago
- ericras 2 months ago
- kemayo 2 months ago
- bluGill 2 months agoThis 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 2 months agoI'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 2 months agoSchedule 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 2 months agoUnless 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 2 months ago“Alternative Pharmaceuticals Purveyor”
- QuercusMax 2 months ago"Independent Entrepreneur"
- staticman2 2 months ago
- toast0 2 months ago> 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 2 months agoMerchant? 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 2 months agoIndependent Pharmaceutical Sales Consultant
- amacbride 2 months agoImport/Export Specialist
- jandrese 2 months agoIndependent salesman.
- 2 months ago
- staticman2 2 months ago
- tyre 2 months agoI believe there is a space for bribery income
- zepton 2 months ago
- whats_a_quasar 2 months agoThis 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 2 months agoThey 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 2 months ago- "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 2 months agoDo you know if an arrest warrant was issued? I don’t think ICE works on warrants
- prepend 2 months agoICE 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 2 months agoYes, 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...
- prepend 2 months ago
- perihelions 2 months ago
- sanderjd 2 months agoThe 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 2 months ago> 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 2 months agoYeah 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.
- sanderjd 2 months ago
- Aeolun 2 months agoOn 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 2 months agoTo 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 2 months agoAxios 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...
- sanderjd 2 months ago
- kallistisoft 2 months ago> The thesis is that immigrants have no constitutional rights because they aren't citizens...
The constitution is quite clear on this issue and it has been affirmed repeatedly over the last 100+ years by the high courts. Anyone and everyone in the world who is on US soil and subject to US jurisdiction is considered a "US Person". This status is regardless of their nationality/nation of origin, the manner by which they arrived on US soil, or any other circumstance.
As a 'US Person' they are protected by the US Constitution with only minimal exceptions; the right to bear arms[1], ability to run for public office, or vote in federal elections[2]
This is by intent and design and is a necessary cornerstone of US democracy!
This is laid out in - Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 "Aliens in the United States"
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8...
> The Court reasoned that aliens physically present in the United States, regardless of their legal status, are recognized as persons guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Thus, the Court determined, even one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory is entitled to that constitutional protection
[1] Only citizens and permanent residents are allowed unrestricted access to firearms.
[2] Some districts allow pr visa holders to vote in local and state elections
- sanderjd 2 months agoYou're preaching to the choir!
Despite this history, the Court is still going to have to reiterate this.
- sanderjd 2 months ago
- ClumsyPilot 2 months agoIs that a serious thesis anyone serious is entertaining ? Would that mean that you can defraud or kill a tourist with no consequences?
- bdangubic 2 months ago
- sanderjd 2 months agoI 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 2 months agoIt's serious in that it's the primary reasoning the Trump administration is using for the lack of due process.
- bdangubic 2 months ago
- zzrrt 2 months ago
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2 months ago>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 2 months agoBut 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_ 2 months agoThis 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 2 months agoSeparate evidence for ...?
- _DeadFred_ 2 months ago
- nashashmi 2 months ago
- jibal 2 months agoYour comment has no connection at all with this case.
- staticman2 2 months ago
- cmurf 2 months agoThe President of the United States of America is at war with the Constitution and the rule of law. - J. Michael Luttig, former Fourth Circuit judge, April 14, 2025.
https://abovethelaw.com/2025/04/conservative-judge-doesnt-pu...
---
This — the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s arrest today of a sitting judge — against the backdrop that the President of the United States is, at this same moment, defying an April 10 Order of the Supreme Court of the United States ... - April 25, 2025
(thread continues)
https://bsky.app/profile/judgeluttig.bsky.social/post/3lnnzb...
---
To read the Criminal Complaint and attached FBI Affidavit that gave rise to Wisconsin State Judge Hannah Dugan’s federal criminal arrest today for obstructing or impeding a proceeding before a department or agency of the United States and concealing an individual to prevent his discovery and arrest is at once to know to a certainty that neither the state courts nor the federal courts could ever even hope to administer justice if the spectacle that took place in Judge Dugan’s courthouse last Friday April 18 took place in the courthouses across the country. - April 25, 2025
(thread continues)
https://bsky.app/profile/judgeluttig.bsky.social/post/3lnnxq...
- chews 2 months agoThere 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 2 months ago> 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 2 months agoYou’re making the innocent till proven guilty argument, detainment somehow stands in the way of that.
- rekttrader 2 months ago
- lupusreal 2 months ago
- xpe 2 months agoIf you want a primary source, I recommend reading https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wied.11...
In particular, part D: "Judge DUGAN escorts Flores-Ruiz through a “jury door” to avoid his arrest."
- Aeolun 2 months agoNot necessarily to avoid his arrest, only the fact they went through a jury door is indicated for now.
- nonethewiser 2 months agoThat's a quote from the complaint against her. It hasnt been tried yet.
Read the document. The agents showed up to arrest Flores-Ruiz. The agents complied with the courtroom deputy to wait until after the proceeding and the deputy agreed to help with the arrest. They waited outside the courtroom at the deputy's request since it was a public space and they didnt have a warrent to enter the jury chamber. The judge was alerted of the officers and approached them and told them to leave. She directed them to go meet with another judge about the matter. She personally lead Flores-Ruiz out through the jury room.
All this stuff appears to be corroborated by witnesses.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wied.11...
- Aeolun 2 months agoYeah, I read the whole thing. What an absolutely atrocious format for reading though. Makes you wonder why they bother to digitize it at all…
- Aeolun 2 months ago
- dionian 2 months agoIt would be interesting to hear if there was another valid reason for this
- Miner49er 2 months agoThere doesn't have to be, it's up to the prosecution to prove the reason was to aid him in avoiding arrest. The judge doesn't have to provide an alternate reason.
- Miner49er 2 months ago
- nonethewiser 2 months ago
- slaw 2 months agoI hope Judge Dugan will be trialed as a regular citizen.
- int_19h 2 months agoI hope the jury will nullify.
It does indeed look like she broke the law, but it was the right thing to do.
- int_19h 2 months ago
- Aeolun 2 months ago
- yesco 2 months ago
- exiguus 2 months agoHow often does it happen in the us that a judge get arrested?
- disqard 2 months agoMultiple people in this thread are painfully obviously trying to look the other way, marshaling all their logic for this purpose, yet you waltz in here and say the quiet part out loud. Tsk tsk!
- 2 months ago
- disqard 2 months ago
- underseacables 2 months agoThis seems lite on facts. Even if I wanted to arrest a sitting judge, it would have to be an act of gross malfeasance to motivate me to even consider arrest. The only thing I can think of… Is, if the judge swore under oath, affidavit, or something like that, that she did not do something when in fact that she did. But even then…
If Patel does not come back with some thing on that level or better, then this was a horrible farce.
- jldugger 2 months ago> Even if I wanted to arrest a sitting judge, it would have to be an act of gross malfeasance to motivate me to even consider arrest.
This logic projects rationality onto an administration that does not merit such assumptions.
- mbrumlow 2 months agoI think it’s more weird that the person being a “sitting judge” is any party of the equation. At the end of the day judges are just people. I would be more worried about a system that proceeded differently because they were a judge.
- crooked-v 2 months agoA judge who's literally in the middle of an official hearing is absolutely a special case.
- GuinansEyebrows 2 months agoJudges are "just people" that make up the only one of three branches of government that seems interested in maintaining a system of checks and balances.
- MyOutfitIsVague 2 months agoOur system has already proceeded differently based on peoples' statuses. Dozens of lawsuits were canned or dropped due to this election.
- whoknowsidont 2 months agoThis makes absolutely zero sense. She was arrested because of her actions (or rather, alleged inaction) in court, as a judge.
She is not "just a person" in this case.
I'm struggling with the dishonesty on grand display by some of the comments in this thread.
- mring33621 2 months ago"I would be more worried about a system that proceeded differently because they were a president"
- jibal 2 months agoShe would not have been arrested if she wasn't a sitting judge on a case involving an allegedly undocumented person. This is all about the Trump administration's ideology and whipping boy.
- crooked-v 2 months ago
- mycatisblack 2 months agoPsychological projection is a very apt choice, thank you for that. I’ve read a lot of people referring to “sanewashing” when the media tries to explain the mechanism behind the madness but this captures it much better.
- jldugger 2 months agoIt's a kind of fundamental error we make as humans: we judge the actions of other peoples by the standard of how we would behave, rather than the other person's past conduct or personality. And then we often work backwards from the action we see, guessing at what would have to be true for _us_ to act that way.
- jibal 2 months agoThat's not what sanewashing is. It's when the media hides someone's insanity, often out of a misplaced notion of "balance". This applied especially to their failing to talk about all the crazy stuff Trump said at his rallies, and their constantly reframing of the unhinged things Trump said in much more sane terms.
- jldugger 2 months ago
- mbrumlow 2 months ago
- dlachausse 2 months ago[flagged]
- amanaplanacanal 2 months agoWhich crime is that exactly? It can't be aiding illegal immigration if the immigrant is already inside the US.
- boroboro4 2 months agoI thought so too, but turned out I'm wrong:
> Key prohibited actions under 8 U.S.C. § 1324 include:
> Bringing in or Attempting to Bring in Aliens: Assisting a non-citizen to enter or try to enter the U.S. at a place other than an official port of entry.
> Transporting: Moving or attempting to move a non-citizen within the U.S., knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that the non-citizen has entered or remains in the U.S. unlawfully, and acting in furtherance of their unlawful presence.
> Harboring or Concealing: Concealing, harboring, or shielding (or attempting to do so) a non-citizen from detection, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that the non-citizen has entered or remains in the U.S. unlawfully. "Harboring" generally means providing shelter but can also include other forms of assistance that help the person evade immigration authorities.
> Encouraging or Inducing: Encouraging or inducing a non-citizen to come to, enter, or reside in the U.S., knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such entry or residence is or will be in violation of law.
> Conspiracy or Aiding/Abetting: Engaging in a conspiracy to commit, or aiding or abetting the commission of, any of the above acts.
TBH those are some quite terrible laws =(
- boroboro4 2 months ago
- amanaplanacanal 2 months ago
- jldugger 2 months ago
- hn_acker 2 months agoHere is a useful explanation of the legal situation [1] with the caveat that the facts of the case haven't been confirmed yet.
[1] The Judge Dugan Case Is More Complicated Than It Seems - https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-judge-dugan-case-is...
- esbranson 2 months agoOk looks like the PACER documents dropped.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69943125/united-states-...
- martinjacobd 2 months agoIf this complaint is true (my understanding is a complaint is always only one side of the story and the evidence presented may not end up being admissible, obviously IANAL and so forth), then seems quite similar to the MA case from several years ago: https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2024/12/04/judge-shel...
- esbranson 2 months agoYes it would appear so.[1] It's a federal felony complaint so I believe it has to go to a grand jury next.
[1] https://www.mass.gov/news/commission-on-judicial-conduct-fil...
- esbranson 2 months ago
- 2 months ago
- 2 months ago
- esbranson 2 months ago[flagged]
- martinjacobd 2 months ago
- 2 months ago
- empath75 2 months agoThis is part of a broader pattern of the incompetent thugs at ICE taking advantage of other, actual functioning and useful parts of government to help them do their work for them. It's not just courts, it's citizenship hearings, it's the IRS, it's schools. They're trying to send a message not to push back or get in their way. It's not about this particular judge, they are sending a message that they will go after school teachers or anybody else.
- xpe 2 months agoGenerally, I share these concerns. At the same time, this story is very new. In any case, looking at the primary sources is important. See https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69943125/united-states-.... I'm not a lawyer, but the criminal complaint does appear to be, more or less, within the realm of normal.
Now, putting aside that complaint, the decision to arrest Dugan is questionable for sure. My current understanding is that such an arrest is only done if the suspect is a flight risk.
It is probably wise to give this at least a few hours of detailed analysis by legal experts before we jump to conclusions or paint it with a broad brush.
- jibal 2 months agoCriminal complaints against sitting judges for actions they took in their courtroom are not at all "normal".
- xpe 2 months ago>> I'm not a lawyer, but the criminal complaint does appear to be, more or less, within the realm of normal.
> Criminal complaints against sitting judges for actions they took in their courtroom are not at all "normal".
Point taken.
Just so that we're not talking past each other: What I was trying to say is this: as I read the language in the document, it sounded like plausible legal text. I'm not suggesting this is the proper bar. I am saying that I've read other official "legal" documents from the Trump administration that don't even meet the "not batshit crazy" bar.
- xpe 2 months ago
- myvoiceismypass 2 months agoI truly do not understand why this administration continually gets the benefit of doubt from the HN audience.
- xpe 2 months ago> I truly do not understand why this administration continually gets the benefit of doubt from the HN audience.
I'm guessing you're not understanding me. Regarding the strength and validity of the FBI's criminal complaint, I'd probably say there is maybe a 20% chance it will hold up in court, but I'm very uncertain about even my estimate. I don't know the law well in this case. Do I think the FBI was politically motivated in bringing this case? Yes, with a high probability (>80%). Do I think the agent in particular who filed the case (presumably a special officer with a long track record) is doing her job reasonably well Yes, I would guess so with P>60%. Are people around the special agent putting pressure on her to comply with Trump's priorities? Probably, P>60%. Again, these are all guesses, but they show that I'm trying to break the issue apart. It isn't just one entity (e.g. "The Administration") versus Judge Dugan here.
I'm not defending the Trump administration. My goal is to understand the situation as clearly as I can without using motivated reasoning. I want to understand what is likely to happen next. It would be emotionally convenient if this situation was clear cut and obvious. It isn't. It is multifaceted and complicated. There is a history of federal immigration officials clashing with local courts.
This also might be a difference of mindset/approach. To the degree you are in a soldier mindset your goal will be to persuade. To the degree you are in a scout mindset, your goal will be to understand. Right now, I'm focusing on the latter.
Do you disagree with the importance of reading the evidence, including the primary documents? (I'm guessing not). Do you disagree with the Bayesian logic of combining your priors with the evidence. (I'm guessing not.)
>> It is probably wise to give this at least a few hours of detailed analysis by legal experts before we jump to conclusions or paint it with a broad brush.
Do you disagree with the part above? My is claim is broad: In this case -- and in most cases -- it is wiser to synthesize information with a clear head. Rushing to judgment is usually a mistake. Disagree?
Most of us are far from experts on the interaction between immigration enforcement and local courts.
I'm not sure if/where we actually disagree. Odds are good we both expect the Trump administration's claims to be dubious at best. I call this my prior. But I'll also read the evidence and see and try to update rationally.
The phrase "benefit of the doubt" can be problematic. I am not trying to force things into yes/no categories. It is usually unwarranted to assign a 0% probability to real-world events. There is at least a small chance that Dugan worked in opposition to the ICE agents. Did she have a legal basis for doing so? A moral basis? Did she break the law? What law? These are just some of my questions. I don't know the answers. Do you? If so, how do you know them and how confident are you?
I'm curious about these details. I'm not looking to rush to "pick a side". Reality can be messy. For example, Trump can be a deplorable autocrat _and_ a local judge can mess up. Both can simultaneously be true.
I'm on the side of promoting due process and a sensible understanding of the Constitution. I don't need to rush to attach my identity to any particular point of view about a situation that I don't understand well yet. This way of viewing the world isn't as common -- most people feel the need to pick a tribe -- but it is very important.
- xpe 2 months ago
- jibal 2 months ago
- xpe 2 months ago
- phendrenad2 2 months agoThere's now been more information in this case. Apparently the judge smuggled the defendant out of the court through a back door in her chambers. I don't know why that information wasn't provided initially, and it's kind of annoying, because all of the other comments here are moot.
- TrapLord_Rhodo 2 months agoICE is there to arrest a known fugative. The judge said you don't have the right to stop proceedings. They back down and say we'll just arrest him afterwards.
>[Afterwards] 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.
Seems like “intentionally misdirecting” federal agents to me.
- 2 months ago
- 2 months ago
- kcatskcolbdi 2 months agoThis seems bad in a sea of events that seem bad.
I have no deep admiration for judges, but the motivation for this seems deeply ideological, and I don't see a bright future where judges are arrested by the Gestapo based on ideological differences.
- macinjosh 2 months agoA judge literally helped a suspect hide from federal law enforcement. How can you be serious? Judges are supposed to up hold the law not find loopholes for people they like.
- cosmicgadget 2 months agoMaybe she was unenthusiastic about the idea of the courthouse turning into an immigration checkpoint?
Kind of rich to be wagging your finger at a judge subverting the law considering what the counterparty has been doing.
- cosmicgadget 2 months ago
- macinjosh 2 months ago
- nonethewiser 2 months agoThis would be pretty sad if she did help him evade ICE. He was in court for battery charges and in the country illegally. ICE arresting him does not interfere with any due process. Which he 100% needs to get (but arresting him is still part of that).
What is left here thats worth protecting? Not someone we want in the country and the agents had a warrant for his arrest (court comes after that). I feel like this is a serious own-goal by the people opposing this. Read the complaint corroborated by witnesses - she clearly did help him evade arrest: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wied.11...
- sarlalian 2 months agoI'll correct my previous statement, it does appear in the legal brief about the judge being arrested that he was here illegally.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wied.11...
- nonethewiser 2 months agoSo the articles you read were.... imprecise, at best.
- nonethewiser 2 months ago
- sarlalian 2 months agoThere is nothing in any of the articles indicating he was here illegally. He's referred to in all the articles I've read as an immigrant. Not as illegal or undocumented.
It's also reasonable to point out that removing someones legal immigration status, due to being "charged" with a crime, is a seriously slippery slope.
- prasadjoglekar 2 months agoAgents from the United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal Operations (“ICE ERO”) identified Flores-Ruiz as an individual who was not lawfully in the United States. A review of Flores-Ruiz’s Alien Registration File (“A-File”) indicated that Flores-Ruiz is a native and citizen of Mexico and that Flores-Ruiz had been issued an I-860 Notice and Order of Expedited Removal by United States Border Patrol Agents on January 16, 2013, and that Flores-Ruiz was thereafter removed to Mexico through the Nogales, Arizona, Port of Entry. There is no evidence in the A-File or DHS indices indicating that Flores-Ruiz sought or obtained permission to return to the United States.
Sworn affidavit in the complaint against Judge Dugan.
- nonethewiser 2 months ago>He's referred to in all the articles I've read as an immigrant.
Well that just say everything about the articles you've been reading, doesnt it?
>Agents from the United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal Operations (“ICE ERO”) identified Flores-Ruiz as an individual who was not lawfully in the United States. A review of Flores-Ruiz’s Alien Registration File (“A-File”) indicated that Flores-Ruiz is a native and citizen of Mexico and that Flores-Ruiz had been issued an I-860 Notice and Order of Expedited Removal by United States Border Patrol Agents on January 16, 2013, and that Flores-Ruiz was thereafter removed to Mexico through the Nogales, Arizona, Port of Entry. There is no evidence in the AFile or DHS indices indicating that Flores-Ruiz sought or obtained permission to return to the United States
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wied.11...
I fully support him getting due process. But arresting him is part of that.
>It's also reasonable to point out that removing someones legal immigration status
Where did that happen?
- prasadjoglekar 2 months ago
- FireBeyond 2 months ago> He was in court for battery charges
Oh I’m sorry, I misread, I thought you said he had been convicted of something.
The law is very important to you when it’s a misdemeanor immigration offense but that whole innocent till proven guilty thing is just an inconvenience.
- nonethewiser 2 months agoI dont understand what you mean by your comment. He was arrested for being in the country illegally. The way this is supposed to work is: 1) you get a warrant, 2) then you make the arrest, and 3) the person gets due process in court. We finished 2 and we definitely need 3. If we dont we have a problem. But what they did so far was correct.
He also was in court for battery. It seems like you're implying that since battery is not illegal entry that he couldn't be arrested. ??? If anything thats just another good reason not to aid his unlawful presence in the country.
- FireBeyond 2 months agoLike I said, as someone who has been charged for something I factually did not do, you’re just parroting the Trump line, “these are bad people, criminals”.
He may well have committed battery. But again, not convicted. But hey, go ahead and assume criminality. Why even bother with court?
- FireBeyond 2 months ago
- nonethewiser 2 months ago
- sarlalian 2 months ago
- firesteelrain 2 months agoBased on the alleged facts, the Judge is guilty of obstruction not harboring. I don’t know why he would hide an illegal from ICE. Especially someone breaking the law which a judge is sworn to uphold.
- lantry 2 months ago"the law, which a judge is sworn to uphold" includes due process. The president and everyone in the executive branch has also sworn to uphold this.
- firesteelrain 2 months agoIllegal immigrant gets due process when they go in front of an immigration judge. This particular judge doesn’t get to pick and choose who gets due process (nor hide illegal immigrants / criminals from ICE)
- int_19h 2 months agoImmigration "courts" (which are administrative, so basically sham) make a mockery of due process. These are literally places where they put 3 year olds on trial without legal representation.
- int_19h 2 months ago
- firesteelrain 2 months ago
- lantry 2 months ago
- _DeadFred_ 2 months agoIf they are arresting judges for any appearance of helping immigrants, imagine all the arrests ICE is making of employers of undocumented immigrants right now.
- neilpointer 2 months agoI think the judge understands the law more deeply than ICE agents. Very unlikely that the judge will be found guilty of the crime charged by FBI, but that's not the point. The point is for Trump and his cronies to scare the judiciary into submission.
- Sammi 2 months agoIf I was a judge in the US right now then I would feel very strongly that there is a metaphorical bus I need to go sit in right now.
- nis0s 2 months agoAmerica is quickly devolving into a lawless, third-world country. Based on the news reported thus far, it seems the judge was arrested because some egos got hurt. Usually when third world country leadership starts acting capricious, there is either a coup or a civil war, neither of which makes sense for a developed, first-world democracy.
The Republicans are right that the lawlessness around the border needs to be controlled, but this is not the way to do it. If I recall correctly, Biden deported millions of illegal immigrants during his term. Whatever is going on right now isn’t security, but a farce.
- jaco6 2 months ago[dead]
- jaco6 2 months ago
- 2 months ago
- like_any_other 2 months ago> Patel announced the arrest of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan in a post on the social media platform X, which he deleted moments after posting. The post 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.
Federal agents have been using this to charge people for nearly a century [1]. Personally I find the law itself repellent, and more often than not it is used to manufacture crimes out of thin air. But if the article is accurate, then nothing has changed - the law is simply being applied evenly, and judges are not above the law.
- sorcerer-mar 2 months agoThe thing that has changed is that 6 months ago, directing federal agents away from an illegal immigrant couldn't be rationalized by one's oath to the Constitution committing one to a belief like "I don't think anyone should be blackbagged and sent to foreign torture prisons for the rest of their lives without due process."
Sure, the law is the law, but it's certainly not true that nothing has changed.
- pbhjpbhj 2 months agoOr to put it another way, if the enforcement of a law cause an action contrary to the USA Constitution then just as before a judge should block that action; previously - presumably - when applying this law it was being done constitutionally.
A judge aiding unidentified assailants (not bearing any insignia of office and hiding their identity) attempting to abduct a person and send them to a death camp would be supremely objectionable in any democracy.
- Spivak 2 months agoOr just the simple "they're appearing in my courtroom I have an exclusive lock on them until I'm done."
- pbhjpbhj 2 months ago
- JKCalhoun 2 months ago> Federal agents have been using this to charge people for nearly a century
Using it on judges?
- typeofhuman 2 months agoBeing a judge might just be circumstantial (sensational?). The arrest may be because of the person's personal actions; not their professional actions as a judge.
- JKCalhoun 2 months agoBut I imagine arresting a judge requires an extra level of discretion. At the very least it's going to be a PR problem if it is found to be unwarranted.
- teachrdan 2 months ago> Being a judge might just be circumstantial (sensational?). The arrest may be because of the person's personal actions; not their professional actions as a judge.
I'm sure you're an intelligent person, but this response seems almost deliberately obtuse. This is clearly an act by the current administration to intimidate the judiciary. It is impossible to separate the unprecedented act of arresting a sitting judge for failing to arrest someone on behalf of ICE from the administration's illegal (according to the Supreme Court) sending immigrants to a prison in El Salvador without due process.
- JKCalhoun 2 months ago
- typeofhuman 2 months ago
- typeofhuman 2 months agoThe FBI Director's post was not deleted
- 2 months ago
- typeofhuman 2 months agoAt the risk of being pedantic, all laws are used to manufacture crimes.
- kemayo 2 months ago> the law is simply being applied evenly, and judges are not above the law.
We obviously don't know the details yet, but this case does sound like it's on the more frivolous end of such charges. If they actually wanted to prosecute on it, they'd need to convince another judge/jury that this judge didn't just make a mistake about where the targeted person was supposed to be right then. This kind of prosecution normally involves comparatively more concrete things -- say, someone claiming to have no idea about a transaction and then the feds pulling out their signature on a receipt.
Of course, this could be a case where the judge knew the person was in a waiting room because they'd just talked to them there on camera, and then deliberately told the ICE agents they were on the other side of the courthouse while they were recording everything.
- 2 months ago
- sorcerer-mar 2 months ago
- 2 months ago
- 2 months ago
- jwsteigerwalt 2 months agoStill waiting for better information about whether the judge was uncooperative or lied/misled the agents.
- KittenInABox 2 months agoThis is immensely frustrating as someone who also genuinely cares about justice being done and the rule of law being followed. I want arrests to be made when there's reasonable information that this judge lied to federal agents, but frankly I can't see the federal government taking appropriate care to ensure they aren't arresting arbitrarily and then dodging accountability for trying to make right their wrongs. The federal government can claim anyone has done a crime and arrest them, but then if they ruin a person's life over this claim what is the arrestee's recourse for justice?
It just seems so in violation of my desire to wait for proof in court: what do we do when the proof is wrong-- how do we make right as a people? This persons was arrested at their workplace publicly and lost their freedoms for however long it takes to sort it out in a court of law. In the meantime the prosecutors who are taking away those freedoms sacrifice nothing while they, too, wait to prove their case in court.
- lupusreal 2 months agoThe government probably has evidence, maybe or maybe not persuasive enough for a conviction. That evidence will be presented in due course, not all up front to the media.
- whats_a_quasar 2 months agoGiven the circumstances, the government absolutely does have an obligation to present its evidence up front. You cannot use federal agents to arrest officers of a state government unless the charges are rock solid. There is a strong public interest in this case and the current administration has shown that it is owed zero deference or presumption that it is acting in good faith.
- KittenInABox 2 months agoThat's my problem: while the arrested person is already forced the humiliation of being arrested, having their freedoms stripped from them, they have no remedy and have to wait in the state of being humiliated while the government who prosecutes them isn't also restrained or humiliated during the wait to present evidence.
And additionally, there have been several recent prominent cases where the government has failed to produce any evidence in court while publicly saying to the media that they're arresting criminals-- of course, the government is able to access the media to claim this while the people they've arrested who, again, have had their freedoms restricted while the people who restrict them are under no similar restraint are unable to do the same!
We can see this in action right now: the government gets to claim to the media that the judge is obstructing arrests of illegal immigrants, while the judge can do no such media counterclaim and has to wait in restraints.
- const_cast 2 months agoThis is an incredibly bold assumption which, from almost all actions taken by this administration, does not seem to be based in reality.
I would not assume they have evidence, I would rather assume they do not. And, if they do, I would rather assume it is made up.
- Schiendelman 2 months agoGiven that recently they have not have evidence in several cases, why are you assuming this?
- jibal 2 months agoThe government has no evidence. The judge told the ICE agents to go get authority and when they got back the defendant had left. That's it.
- whats_a_quasar 2 months ago
- lupusreal 2 months ago
- 2 months ago
- 2 months ago
- KittenInABox 2 months ago
- tptacek 2 months agoThis happened in the last Trump administration, too.
- pvg 2 months agoI don't think they started with an arrest then, right?
- tptacek 2 months agoNo, they started with a felony indictment. They later dropped the charges, and she got misconduct charges from the MA Commission on Judicial Conduct.
- tptacek 2 months ago
- 2 months ago
- whats_a_quasar 2 months agoSource?
- perihelions 2 months agoThere's a parallel comment subthread about that,
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43794576#43795264 ("In April [2019], [Shelley Joseph] and a court officer, Wesley MacGregor, were accused of allowing an immigrant to evade detention by arranging for him to sneak out the back door of a courthouse. The federal prosecutor in Boston took the highly unusual step of charging the judge with obstruction of justice…")
- chimeracoder 2 months agoAFAIK Selley Joseph was charged, but she was not arrested. Arresting a judge in this sort of scenario is essentially unprecedented.
- chimeracoder 2 months ago
- perihelions 2 months ago
- killthegaffots 2 months ago[dead]
- lobotomizer 2 months ago[flagged]
- pvg 2 months ago
- robblbobbl 2 months agoConcerning
- mmooss 2 months agoThe issue here is not the facts of this incident. The issue is an attempted expansion of power and reduction in the liberty to dissent.
The Trump administration have been talking for weeks, maybe months, of finding ways for US attorneys to prosecute local officials who do not support Trump's immigration policy. Note that they also are threatening punishment through budget and policy.
Also, realize that immigration is just the first step:
* It's the first step in legitimizing mass prejudice - including stereotypes, in this case of non-wealthy immigrants - and hatred, and legitimizing that as a basis for denying people their humanity, dignity, and rights.
* It's a first step to legitimizing government terror as a policy tool.
* It's a first step in expanding the executive branch's power - I suspect chosen because the executive branch already has a lot of power in that domain. Note their claim to deny any check on their power by Congress (through the laws, which are made by Congress, and funding, which is appropriated by Congress) and the courts.
* It's a first step to expanding federal power vis-a-vis the states.
The next steps will be to use those now-legitimate tools on other groups, other forms of power, etc.
Part of the way it works is corruption: people make an exception or support it because it's following the herd, because opposing it is harder and sometimes scary, because they don't like this particular group and it seems legitimate in some way ....
Then when they turn these weapons on you, what standing do you have to disagree? I think in particular of politically vulnerable communities who are going along with these things or saying, 'not our problem' - you're next. That's where "First they came for the socialists ..." etc. comes from. (And you'll note that, not coincidentally, they are also coming for some socialists now and laying the groundwork for more, but most people don't like the socialists anyway so that's fine!)
- slaw 2 months agoNo, the issue is:
"Judge DUGAN escorts Flores-Ruiz through a “jury door” to avoid his arrest."
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wied.11...
- insane_dreamer 2 months agoexcept that they didn't have valid warrant for his arrest, so no.
- insane_dreamer 2 months ago
- slaw 2 months ago
- 2 months ago
- tlogan 2 months agoNow think about the other way: what if this judge is super right wing?
I’m getting concerned that our judicial branch is becoming more and more political. And believe me there are many right wing judges.
- bonif 2 months agoIt’s heartbreaking to see the United States, once a symbol of strength and freedom, reduced to a complete joke.
- CamperBob2 2 months agoWell, you see, some dogs and cats were being eaten, and the other lady cackled too much, so it was inevitable, really.
- cosmicgadget 2 months agoAnd don't forget the price of eggs which somehow is unrelated to the fiscal and monetary policies started in 2020.
- staplers 2 months agoIt's worse actually. People lived through 2020 and wanted to do it again..
- crawsome 2 months agoYeah, those 19 people's investments are doing great.
- crawsome 2 months ago
- cosmicgadget 2 months ago
- Aeolun 2 months agoI mean, it did always seem pretty close to the surface. Like the US was one misstep away from this happening. The balance of power in a two party system seems almost comically skewed.
- 2 months ago
- trelane 2 months agoThis is not a new development. We'be been laughed at for as long as I can remember.
- CamperBob2 2 months ago
- whoknowsidont 2 months agoDemocratic states really need to start disallowing federal agents to operate within their borders and band together.
Activate their respective national guards and make it happen.
Yes, that means defying federal law. Yes that means exactly the consequences you want to draw from those actions.
There is no other option at this point. The law is dead in the U.S.
- kevin_thibedeau 2 months agoEvery public official in every state has sworn an oath to uphold the constitution. Willfully ignoring that oath whenever it suits them is not a faithful commission of their duties. While trampling on civil rights is a problem so is harboring known, convicted felons.
If Wisteguens Charles had been deported in 2022, some of his future crimes wouldn't have happened. Instead we have people falling over themselves to have sympathy for the worst elements of society and ignoring the oath they made to uphold the law. That doesn't justify twisting the law into a tool for cruelty but is no better to arbitrarily ignore it either.
- dragonwriter 2 months ago> Every public official in every state has sworn an oath to uphold the constitution.
"...against all enemies, foreign and domestic." (I'm quite aware, having taken -- and signed -- that oath many times.) That includes a federal executive that is repeatedly and consistently violating due process, engaging in the slave trade, exceeding Constitutional powers by bad-faith invocation of war powers with no actual war, and violating the first amendment by retaliating against unwelcome political speech in the context of and under the pretext of immigration enforcement.
- whoknowsidont 2 months agoNo one was harboring anything. Also, have a quote:
“The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.” - H.L. Mencken
- kristjansson 2 months ago> sympathy for the worst elements of society
For people _alleged_ to be among the worst elements of society. If they're that bad, try them, get your slam-dunk conviction, and jail them here.
Deportation does not annihilate a person, or shift them to another astral plane, it moves them a few dozen or hundred or thousand miles away. The counterfactual for 'if so-and-so was deported' is unknowable. They might have just walked back in the following week.
- thrance 2 months agoThe contract has been violated, the federal government is already acting extra-constitutionally.
- 2 months ago
- dragonwriter 2 months ago
- kansface 2 months agoNo, absolutely not. Trump would federalize the national guard as did Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson and charge the governors with treason. You advocate for de facto succession of the states - we settled that matter with blood last time. The next time will be far worse.
The rule of law does not prohibit bad arrests nor can it. The rule of law provides the opportunity for remedy after the fact.
- whoknowsidont 2 months agoHow are you or anyone else going to remedy anything when you're half a world away, with no access to anyone let alone _anything_ outside your death camp?
Absolutely yes. This needs to stop right here, and the consequences for violating the rule of law, for violating due process, for violating human rights, must be real.
- kansface 2 months agoYou advance civil war as the remedy for the hypothetical. I’m squarely with Lincoln on the matter.
- kansface 2 months ago
- fzeroracer 2 months agoWhen the federal government is actively hostile towards the states then the only recourse is going to be secession.
> The rule of law does not prohibit bad arrests nor can it. The rule of law provides the opportunity for remedy after the fact.
In a world where you and I could be renditioned to a foreign country and thrown into slave labor by the government simply acting fast enough as to maneuver around the court then there is no rule of law and there is no remedy.
- prepend 2 months agoThat’s not really a viable recourse as it will result in that state being force ably retained in the union.
I think a better remedy is to work within the laws of the country and to elect different federal representatives (president, senator, house representatives).
Secession would definitely be worse for any state attempting it.
- prepend 2 months ago
- whoknowsidont 2 months ago
- kjkjadksj 2 months agoYou are asking for an armed standoff. Last time that happened in this country, college students were slaughtered by government forces.
- ceejayoz 2 months agoDepends a bit on your politics.
https://www.npr.org/2024/06/20/nx-s1-4966725/a-decade-after-...
> Ten years after staging an armed standoff with federal agents on his Nevada ranch, Cliven Bundy remains free. As does his son Ammon, despite an active warrant for Ammon from Idaho related to a harassment lawsuit.
- derektank 2 months agoPeople also died during the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon, which was an extension of the Bundy standoff. I think it's fair to say that these are kinds of showdowns between federal and state/local forces are fraught with danger for those involved.
- derektank 2 months ago
- whoknowsidont 2 months agoI didn't ask or wish for us to get this point. But this is it, right here. Either there are consequences for violating the rule of law or we keep sliding further and further into despotism.
- int_19h 2 months agoWell then, best not come unarmed.
- digdugdirk 2 months ago... As opposed to the numerous civilians who are currently being killed by government forces without repercussion due to qualified immunity?
Though having said that, I'm not sure if qualified immunity would apply in the same way to ICE officers. If that hasn't been legally determined yet (remember - ICE didn't exist before 9/11, and legal determinations take time), and looking at how ICE is currently operating with impunity in plain clothes and unmarked vehicles... Things will get much worse than Kent State before they get better.
- ceejayoz 2 months ago
- 2 months ago
- hexis 2 months ago[flagged]
- ihsw 2 months ago[dead]
- baggy_trough 2 months ago[flagged]
- whoknowsidont 2 months agoPlease, list them. And be exceedingly honest, rational, and evidence-based about how effective those courses of actions would be.
- nh23423fefe 2 months agoLol, before it was civil war, now its explain yourself point by point.
- ihsw 2 months ago[dead]
- nh23423fefe 2 months ago
- Der_Einzige 2 months agoNo it is not. You must force confrontation for Americans to realize the stakes.
- whoknowsidont 2 months ago
- dlachausse 2 months agoWhy are deportations of illegal immigrants bad? Come here legally and be properly vetted.
The law is dead if states defy it by refusing to allow federal agents to enforce immigration law.
This whole stance is absolute madness.
- stouset 2 months agoMany of the people currently being stripped of their rights and deported are documented, legal visa and green card holders or documented and legal asylum seekers.
Even illegal immigrants need to be deported through due process. That’s the entire part where the government is supposed to demonstrate that they are here illegally. We are currently skipping that part and essentially granting the executive branch unilateral authority to deport anyone to foreign labor camps as long as the press secretary says the words “illegal immigrant” or “MS-13”.
To make things even worse, these deportations are being overtly politically targeted. If you’re here on a legal visa and speak against this administration, they are making it clear that they will strip you of your visa and disappear you without a second thought and without an opportunity to defend yourself.
You are correct that the law is dead. You are embarrassingly mistaken about who killed it.
- alistairSH 2 months agoThe problem isn't deporting illegal immigrants.
The problem(s) are... - lack of due process (Constitution doesn't distinguish between legal and illegal residents) - leading to deportation of legal residents (Garcia case from MD) - sending illegal immigrants to a jail that's hosted abroad is NOT deportation in the normal sense of the word - it closer to our holding of detainees at Gitmo post-9/11.
- stouset 2 months agoI wish people would stop trying to argue that the constitution affords due process to both legal and illegal residents like you are doing here. It does, but that’s missing the forest for the trees.
If all the government has to do is say “they’re here illegally” to get a free pass to do whatever they want to someone, then even legal residents don’t have rights. Due process is the entire mechanism behind which the government can establish something like illegal residency. As soon as you say Group A has the right to a trial and Group B doesn’t, calling someone a member of Group B is all it takes to subvert the entire legal process.
- stouset 2 months ago
- unsnap_biceps 2 months agoTwo wrongs don't make a right. I am for reducing illegal immigration, but I am firmly against how ICE/this admin is doing it and I feel that the states should be pushing back against the attacks on due process.
- eli_gottlieb 2 months agoNothing wrong with deporting illegal immigrants through legal channels that allow for due process and follow the rulings of immigration courts.
Something very wrong with sending deportation notices or trying to sic immigration enforcement on American citizens.
- dlachausse 2 months ago> Something very wrong with sending deportation notices or trying to sic immigration enforcement on American citizens.
I must have missed that, when did that happen?
- dlachausse 2 months ago
- surfaceofthesun 2 months agoThis is a perfectly reasonable response during normal presidential administrations. However, this administration is credibly[1] accused of avoiding due process via the current deportation process.
I'll include a quote from the (9-0!) April 10th Supreme Court ruling[1] concerning the removal of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia from the United States to El Salvador.
> The Government’s argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U. S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene.
Without a chance to demonstrate that someone is in the US legally (i.e., Due Process), the defense of this action can be that it's necessary to prevent the rendition of US citizens to El Salvador or elsewhere. That might sound crazy, but we already have an example of a US citizen being held in custody per an ICE request, despite having proof of being born in the US[2]. If both practices continue, we'll ultimately see the intersection at some point.
--- [1] -- https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf
[2] -- https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/a-u-s-citizen-was-held...
- kashunstva 2 months ago1. It is being done without due process. 2. One high-profile mistake has already been made; and a man is now languishing in a Salvadoran prison. 3. The conditions of detention are often horrendous. I would support upholding their laws if they executed them a shred of human decency and empathy.
- whoknowsidont 2 months agoI don't think anyone has that position, so not sure what you're responding to.
- mola 2 months agoDue process
- jibal 2 months agoWhy is attacking a strawman bad?
- stouset 2 months ago
- kevin_thibedeau 2 months ago
- hidingfearful 2 months agoa federal agency that doesn't follow the law should lose the protection of the law. Charge the ICE agents with attempted kidnapping of the immigrant and actual kidnapping of the judge.
- rchaud 2 months agoI imagine they'll soon be putting a spin on George W Bush-era legal arguments about the applicability of Geneva Conventions on "non-uniformed combatants". In this case, if the ICE agents weren't uniformed at the time of arrest, they can't be considered agents of the federal government, and thus can't be subject to legal redress.
- Aeolun 2 months agoDoes that mean they’ll just be trespassers that can be shot if they enter your property unannounced like a gang of hooligans?
- rchaud 2 months agoIt's not a coincidence that they're arresting openly unarmed people like student protesters and now judges.
- BXLE_1-1-BitIs1 2 months ago2nd Amendment and self defense arguments could be argued if you shoot plainclothes officers in fear of your safety.
- alistairSH 2 months agoIn theory, but how many of them are you going to shoot before they shoot back?
- actionfromafar 2 months agoNot saying anyone should but in that case they are.
- rchaud 2 months ago
- Aeolun 2 months ago
- 2 months ago
- frumplestlatz 2 months ago[flagged]
- whoknowsidont 2 months agoThat statement isn't even close or applicable to any hypothetical actions the judge could have taken here. If the judge did something unlawful there are already lawful mechanisms for dealing with that and NONE of those mechanisms involve ICE detaining the judge.
This is exactly what it looks like, nothing else.
- trelane 2 months ago> If the judge did something unlawful there are already lawful mechanisms for dealing with that and NONE of those mechanisms involve ICE detaining the judge.
ICE is not detaining the judge.
> But Brady McCarron, spokesman for U.S. Marshals Service in Washington, D.C., said Dugan is being charged with two federal felony counts: obstruction and concealing an individual. McCarron also confirmed Dugan was arrested at about 8 a.m. at the Milwaukee County Courthouse.
> U.S. Attorney Pam Bondi posted on X: "I can confirm that our @FBI agents just arrested Hannah Dugan – a county judge in Milwaukee – for allegedly helping an illegal alien avoid an arrest by @ICEgov."
Source: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/breaking/2025/04/25/milw... (from below)
AFAICT, this is exactly what that would look like. She's been arrested by FBI/US Marshals, and a court date for her hearing has been set.
- trelane 2 months ago
- kenjackson 2 months agoI don't think citizens have a legal obligation to enforce immigration law (generally).
- rolph 2 months agoa judge doesnt enforce law, they are tasked with providing a neutral recourse to the overarching principal of justice, during the proceedings of the court.
- whoknowsidont 2 months ago
- trelane 2 months agoUm, I sense you're being ironic.
- rchaud 2 months ago
- bko 2 months ago
- jaco6 2 months agoWhy are the people of Wisconsin taking this without a fight? Sit ins in local FBI branch offices and police stations are in order. Groups of protestors stand in front of police car parking lots—if the piggies can’t leave their sty, they can’t destroy our democracy.
- jibal 2 months agoWhat makes you think people aren't doing that? They are. You're wrong about that last bit, though.
- readhistory 2 months ago[flagged]
- jibal 2 months ago
- Supermancho 2 months agoAFAICT, the summary:
Judge (or the courthouse in some regard) assured immigrants-of-interest^ would not be detained in courthouse, to speed up legal proceedings and to try to ensure equitable justice was being served.
An immigrant was identified by ICE and the judge directed ICE somewhere and when the immigrant was not apprehended (maybe appeared in court for his 3 BATTERY misdemeanors), the FBI was called in to arrest the judge at the courthouse for obstruction. Immigrant of interest was apprehended.
That sound about right? Bueller? Bueller?
^ The immigrants of interest are of varied legal status, so I'll just say "of interest".
- alistairSH 2 months agoWe don't know if that's correct because, unless it's surfaced in the last hour, we haven't seen anybody's account of what happened before the arrest (other than some high-level appointees tweeting).
- alistairSH 2 months agoCan't edit, but I've seen a few more detailed timelines that roughly correspond to the parent post.
The judge didn't want ICE screwing up her courtroom (as is her right), so she declined to allow them to serve the warrant in her court.
ICE went to her boss (different part of building).
Meanwhile, she concluded her hearing with the immigrant in question and then sent him down a private stairway to exit the building.
When ICE heard what she did, they had a warrant issued for her arrest, which was then served by the FBI. So, somebody did convince a local magistrate (not a full-blown judge) to issue that warrant.
My take (IANAL)... the judge was not in the wrong for decling to serve the initial warrant. But sending the guy down a private hallway was a dumb move. Was it a federal crime? Doesn't seem like it - a slap on the wrist from her boss probably should have been sufficient.
Really, just more of the Trump administration throwing their weight around and pushing the boundaries of what's acceptable in the US.
- alistairSH 2 months ago
- 2 months ago
- alistairSH 2 months ago
- crote 2 months agoI'm not very familiar with US laws, but why wouldn't the FBI agents likewise be arrested for interfering with the judge's court case?
Let's say I murder someone. I definitely did it, and there's plenty of evidence. What's stopping my hypothetical ICE buddy from showing up at my first court appearance, arresting me, and deporting me to a country without extradition by claiming that I am an "illegal immigrant"?
- dylan604 2 months agoFBI != ICE. It was ICE that showed up to the courtroom. The FBI was only involved in the arrest after ICE was butt hurt and complained to daddy about the situation. ICE does not have authority to arrest citizens. That is why the FBI was involved to be able to make the arrest of a citizen
- crote 2 months agoAh, sorry, missed that detail. I should've said "why wouldn't the ICE agents likewise be arrested"
> ICE does not have authority to arrest citizens
ICE has the authority to arrest and deport illegal immigrants, does it not? That's why they were at the courtroom in the first place. If said citizen has zero interest in disproving ICE's belief that they aren't an illegal immigrant, who's going to stop ICE from arresting them?
- dylan604 2 months agoIf you're a citizen and get rounded up by ICE, you'd be a complete moron to not be protesting your citizenship and offering up proof of it. Whether they believe you or not is up to them, but I've never heard of a citizen that just went along with the deportation and never objecting about being a citizen. Where do you even come up with this idea on zero interest in disproving ICE?
Hell even Cheech & Chong have a bit/song about this "I was born in East LA".
- dylan604 2 months ago
- crote 2 months ago
- Y_Y 2 months agoIs this qhy everyone is worried about illegal immigrants comitting crimes? Because they have a get-out-of-jail-free?
- 2 months ago
- dylan604 2 months ago
- Slava_Propanei 2 months ago[dead]
- seivan 2 months ago[dead]
- daheza 2 months agoSince the Judiciary seem to be the only ones pushing back against the Federal overreach it makes sense to them go after them first.
I don't expect Congress to start getting arrested until or if they ever do any significant pushback against Trump and his cronies.
This is America now, the land of the lawless and unjust. Prepare accordingly people, if they do not like what you are doing they will use their full power to stop you.
- paganel 2 months ago> I don't expect Congress to start getting arrested until or if they ever do any significant pushback against Trump and his cronies
They won't, or they would have done so already. Granted, I'm not an American so I might be seeing things the wrong way from the other side of the planet, but it has been 3 months already, enough time for Congress to at least be seen as doing something, anything.
- 2 months ago
- frumplestlatz 2 months ago[flagged]
- sorcerer-mar 2 months agoIt is absolutely federal overreach to send people to foreign torture prisons (or even domestic utopian cuddle farms) without due process, full stop.
- frumplestlatz 2 months ago[flagged]
- typeofhuman 2 months ago[flagged]
- frumplestlatz 2 months ago
- bix6 2 months agoThe immigration laws that they themselves are breaking by depriving due process? Come on now.
- Hikikomori 2 months agoWould call it an overreach to turn ICE into their own version of the brownshirts and disappear people without due process.
- dekhn 2 months agoIt depends on the nature of the federal action. If they do illegal things to enforce a law, that would be overreach.
- tclancy 2 months agoThat is begging about four questions.
- JKCalhoun 2 months agoI already see several in peer comments.
- JKCalhoun 2 months ago
- 2 months ago
- GuinansEyebrows 2 months agoHey, regardless of your stance on borders and immigration, maybe let's not normalize defending the United State's horrible immigration law enforcement as it stands by doing this weird interrogative gotcha game.
- MisterBastahrd 2 months agoIt's patently anti-American to deny people due process. Refusing to give information to fascists who believe they have no restraint of jurisdiction is the lesser of two evils here.
- sorcerer-mar 2 months ago
- DrillShopper 2 months ago[flagged]
- Aeolun 2 months agoPlease learn how to shoot and handle a gun, before you arm yourself.
- Aeolun 2 months ago
- paganel 2 months ago
- seivan 2 months ago[dead]
- josefritzishere 2 months agoThis is feeling increasingly like Germany circa 1936.
- indiansdontwipe 2 months ago[dead]
- throwaway5752 2 months agoExecutive branch arrests of members of judiciary are not to be taken lightly. There are many ways to deal with these situations and this is extraordinarily far from normal. All you can do is diversify your US-based investments and get travel visas while you still can.
If you are tempted to downvote, you could make a better point by finding comparable examples under any other modern president.
- derektank 2 months agoOne need not think this is good, just, or even lawful behavior by the FBI director, nor think this is in any way comparable to the behavior of Democratic administrations, to think it's irresponsible to advise people to "get travel visas while you still can."
- throwaway5752 2 months agoI think it is reasonable to be prepared and have options to leave when basic civil rights and rule of law are being systematically tested and weakened on behalf of the most powerful individual in the country, who had sworn to uphold them. I would say it is irresponsible to ignore or minimize the magnitude of changes in the US in the past 100 days.
I didn't say to sell all belongings and move. I said to have a way out if it becomes necessary. The FBI is being weaponized against judges, right now, and this without any modern precedent.
- Aeolun 2 months ago> it's irresponsible to advise people to "get travel visas while you still can.“
I’m inclined to think that people won’t get travel visas based on the advice of a complete stranger, HN or no.
- throwaway5752 2 months ago
- trelane 2 months agoI used to think that about ex presidents. The times seem to have changed.
- 2 months ago
- savagej 2 months ago[dead]
- Der_Einzige 2 months ago[flagged]
- Aeolun 2 months ago[flagged]
- throwaway5752 2 months ago"To be fair, he wasn’t a member of the judiciary"
That is an extremely important distinction. Further, there are legitimate actions by the FBI in the cases of real judges and representatives in their public corruption prosecutions (see Kids for Cash). In this case, though, the charges are intended to intimidate. That is exactly what the director's tweet communicated and why it was deleted.
- miltonlost 2 months ago> Didn’t Biden famously try to impeach/arrest Trump for a variety of reasons? I
Oh my god, no, that never happened at all. This is a fever dream. How in the world and constitution Could Biden IMPEACH Trump when he wasn't a member of the House of Reps, which is the body that impeaches Presidents. Actually, Biden also couldn't arrest Trump, as federal arrests would be by the AG. Famously, Merrick Garland took forever to bring cahrges to Trump, and, unlike Trump did with his AGs, Biden never interfered.
Do you have any sources for this "famous" impeachment and arrests?
> I’m not sure if I’ve ever heard of so many attempts on the same president.
Because no other President tried to start a violent coup when he lost the election! That is a good reason to arrest someone, which is included in your vague "variety of reasons".
- throwaway5752 2 months ago
- derektank 2 months ago
- killthegaffots 2 months ago[dead]
- oldpersonintx 2 months ago[dead]
- death2treason 2 months ago[flagged]
- bjornsing 2 months ago[flagged]
- akagusu 2 months ago[flagged]
- anonfordays 2 months ago[flagged]
- gsibble 2 months ago[flagged]
- Aeolun 2 months agoThis thread is especially bad though. So much flagged and dead. I feel like some true extremists descended on this one, writing both inflammatory messages as well as flagging everything they don’t like.
- gsibble 2 months agoEvery time I've written something that goes against the liberal narrative that makes the front page on HN, it's flagged in under 5 minutes.
Even when it's about tech or San Francisco.
- Aeolun 2 months agoThat happens in reverse too though? I see lots of liberal comments flagged that are perfectly reasonable (if not necessarily productive)
- Aeolun 2 months ago
- gsibble 2 months ago
- Aeolun 2 months ago
- anonym29 2 months agoWould it not be better to have a peaceful, civil, lawful, separation of the two different Americas than for us to rigidly cling to an idea of a "United" States that no longer represents reality?
We're clearly living in two different realities already, brought about the partisan media (on both sides) willfully and deliberately misrepresenting reality to serve the interests of their shadowy trillion-dollar corporate conglomerates, amplified by the digital echo chambers brought about other secretive, manipulative trillion-dollar corporate conglomerates.
Is it seriously better to let the entire federal government collapse, leaving a power void in it's wake, than to have two Americas with freedom of movement, free trade, etc?
- patrickmay 2 months agoThere aren't just two choices. My neighbor on one side voted for Trump, the one down the street voted for Harris, and I voted for Oliver.
The problem is the concentration of federal power generally and executive power specifically in this administration. Decrease the size and scope of government, particularly at the national level, and there's a lot less to argue about.
- sylens 2 months agoHow would you pull this off when the split seems pretty divided between city/suburban and more rural areas? Does everybody have to airlift their goods everywhere?
- GuinansEyebrows 2 months agoThere's no way to gerrymander a border that splits America into two geographically distinct countries with strong majority representation of whatever binary you think exists. By that I mean, there are communists in Kentucky and Proud Boys in Hawaii. If we seriously tried to split in two, it'd be like post-colonial India and Pakistan with worse weapons.
regardless, this idea is a distraction from the problem of wealth accumulation and the erosion of representative politics through private funding.
- anonym29 2 months agoI'm all for corporate death penalty or forced divestiture for every company with a $1T+ market cap.
Fuck Apple, Nvidia, Amazon, Microsoft, Alphabet, Meta, Tesla, Broadcom, and Berkshire Hathaway.
The more decentralization the better.
- anonym29 2 months ago
- JKCalhoun 2 months agoMaybe you're a fan of "Texit".
- anonym29 2 months agoGood guess. I'm big on "marketplace of ideas", where each state has far greater control of public policy (which is overwhelmingly federalized right now). If California wants to show the world how good single-payer healthcare and UBI could be, let them. If New York wants to disarm every resident and send police around to confiscate firearms, let them. If Texas wants to ban abortion within the state for residents, let them. Let each state have an opportunity to show the world how good or bad their policy positions are. Diversity of policy + freedom of choice.
My big caveats would be freedom of movement, no criminalizing activity that occurs out of state, free trade, freedom of association (no Alabama, you cannot criminalize trade with Massachusets), etc. If you don't like California, you should be free to leave California (without fear of California retroactively increasing punitive tax enforcement against you), and if you don't like Texas, you should be free to leave Texas (even if just to get an abortion in another state and then come back, without fear of arrest or imprisonment).
We are not one identical set of people with one identical culture, one identical set of values, one identical sense of right and wrong. We're 330,000,000+ unique individuals who cluster together, mainly around people like us.
Good gun laws for rural Montana are not necessarily good gun laws for New York City. We should stop pretending that the people in DC always know best for everyone, everywhere. Local communities know what is best for themselves. The more decentralized, the better.
- anonym29 2 months ago
- rchaud 2 months agoSure, history is after all awash in examples of peaceful secessions where everybody agreed to not question each others' borders again. Korea, India, Algeria, the Soviet Union, Palestine..... /s
- 2 months ago
- patrickmay 2 months ago
- 2 months ago
- etchalon 2 months ago[flagged]
- bradley13 2 months ago[flagged]
- tmpz22 2 months agoIf the facts come out that the charge is flimsy or legally unsound AND protocol and precedent was breached, such as it being very atypical to haul a nonviolent offender (the judge) from a courthouse, would you change your mind?
Will you follow up on the facts of this case or do you already know everything you need to know?
- bradley13 2 months agoShe sent the agents out of the hearing, where they waited for the guy to come out. After the hearing, she told him to leave via the jury door, to avoid the agents.
Pretty clear cut. What about you? Given the facts, will you defend her?
- bradley13 2 months ago
- 2 months ago
- tmpz22 2 months ago
- jmclnx 2 months ago[flagged]
- bix6 2 months ago[flagged]
- basedkash0 2 months ago[flagged]
- basedkash 2 months ago[flagged]
- esbranson 2 months agoIntentionally misdirecting a federal investigation is a crime.[1][2] Pretty straightforward accusation.
"Our legal system provides methods for challenging the Government's right to ask questions—lying is not one of them." — Justice Harlan
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_false_statements [2] https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual...
- esbranson 2 months agoOk looks like they're 18 USC 1505 (obstruction) and 18 USC 1071 (harboring) charges.[1] Less straightforward.
[1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69943125/united-states-...
- crooked-v 2 months agoThere was no "misdirecting" here. The judge truthfully told the agents they wouldn't be allowed to detain someone in the middle of a hearing without exceptional permission, at which point they all left, apparently didn't even bother to watch the courthouse doors, and upon their return had the judge arrested for not detaining a man it wasn't her job or legal authority to detain.
- esbranson 2 months agoPer the criminal complaint, despite a federal warrant for Flores-Ruiz's arrest, Judge Dugan escorted Flores-Ruiz through a non-public jury door to escape arrest.
- crooked-v 2 months agoShe had no legal obligation to hold the man or have him exit in a particular way. The agents on the scene clearly agreed, or they wouldn't have left!
- crooked-v 2 months ago
- esbranson 2 months ago
- jmull 2 months agoWhat does this have to do with this situation though?
- 2 months ago
- esbranson 2 months ago
- Der_Einzige 2 months ago[flagged]
- exe34 2 months ago[flagged]
- macinjosh 2 months ago[flagged]
- grafmax 2 months agoOne person’s crime doesn’t define a whole group. Most undocumented immigrants follow the law. Justice demands that we hold individuals accountable without using isolated cases to justify broad prejudice.
- macinjosh 2 months agoThat doesn't change the fact that if this man was deported, according to the law, the first time he was arrested (he was previously arrested), then my Mom would be able to make us Thanksgiving dinner again, her favorite thing in the world, or it was.
The whole group is violating the law by overstaying visas or sneaking in the country, etc. Why is all of that OK to just let happen?
- grafmax 2 months agoI’m very sorry about what happened to your mom. What has happened to her is not fair to her or you.
However regarding immigration law, the reality is that this law isn’t designed to distinguish between people who are dangerous and people trying to survive. It effectively lumps millions of hardworking people into the same category as violent offenders, without concern for justice or safety.
Trump scapegoats undocumented immigrants as a group and blames them for crime and economic problems. It is cynical manipulation designed to appeal to people who fear crime or have been victims of it.
In fact, it is poverty that causes most crime, and our economic problems are due to the reckless policy choices made by the ultra-wealthy and the politicians they control. Mass deportation does nothing to address the real causes of injustice and insecurity in this country. In fact it serves to distract from the real causes of the problems we are facing.
- grafmax 2 months ago
- macinjosh 2 months ago
- jjulius 2 months agoSorry to hear that about your mom, that really sucks.
Are you suggesting that all legal citizens maintain insurance, don't steal cars and don't flee crime scenes?
- 2 months ago
- macinjosh 2 months agoI am implying my Mom would still be herself if we were more serious about illegal immigration. Why is that hard to grok?
He had no license to be on that road, much less in the country. Both are privileges, not rights. The fact of the matter is if he had not been allowed to stay in this country when we was previously arrested, my mom would be OK today.
My family got unlucky, but society could have just not gambled on our lives in the first place? We have immigration laws for a reason, why should we ignore when they are violated?
- jjulius 2 months ago>Why is that hard to grok?
Because of the way you worded your first paragraph, and the lack of information around timing of the previous issue of domestic violence. The first paragraph was passionately accusatory (rightly so, given your experience), and the second paragraph didn't clear things up.
I simply asked to clarify. Thank you for your response, and I wish you and your mom all the best.
- jjulius 2 months ago
- alienvictim 2 months ago[dead]
- savagej 2 months ago[dead]
- 2 months ago
- scottyg66 2 months agoHow did you know he was an illegal alien if he fled the scene and wasn't caught?
- Clubber 2 months agoBecause they caught him later? There are cameras everywhere these days.
- macinjosh 2 months agoI never said he was not caught. He also left identifying information in his vehicle and had a warrant out for his arrest already.
He got in fight in jail and died before he even got close to facing justice.
- Clubber 2 months ago
- neilpointer 2 months agoI think it's because our legal system is predicated on "innocent until proven guilty" for really, really good reasons. One such reason is assuming people should not be protected by the law without proving allegations against them in a court.
- thowawy9292 2 months ago[dead]
- thowawy9292 2 months ago
- insane_dreamer 2 months agoBecause the man was in court for his alleged crime, the judicial system working as intended.
But ICE showed up without a legal warrant and attempted to subvert the judicial system by whisking him away, and then arrested a judge.
Accused of a crime? Go to court, be found guilt or innocent, and serve your sentence if convicted.
If we don't hold up the rule of law we become a dictatorship.
- chimeracoder 2 months ago> Why are some people so obsessed with protecting people with no regard for our laws
This is a wild statement for someone to write in defense of people who just broke the law while arresting a federal judge who was herself attempting to enforce the law.
- macinjosh 2 months agoShe was a county judge and she helped him escape justice.
- thowawy9292 2 months ago[dead]
- macinjosh 2 months ago
- grafmax 2 months ago
- huitzitziltzin 2 months agoThis feels like a “break glass in case of emergency” kind of moment. Sure there are no details yet, but I’m trying to imagine details which would make me think “that arrest makes sense.” If I were in Milwaukee I’d be in the streets.
- rgreeko42 2 months agoThe copper that connects the alarm lever to the alarm system was sold for scrap 25 years ago
- guywithahat 2 months agoGenerally speaking, if you lie to cops or other federal agents you can be arrested on a number of grounds, including obstruction of justice, interfering with an arrest, or concealment.
The dumb part about this is the judge sends people to jail ever year for doing exactly this. She knew what he was doing was illegal, she just didn't care.
- 2 months ago
- 2 months ago
- mbrumlow 2 months ago[flagged]
- dekhn 2 months agoDepends- if the judge directed agents from their subjects for a lawful reason, then no, there is no cause for arrest.
- soulofmischief 2 months agoNone of this is happening in a vacuum. Our federal government is completely compromised by a violent, oligarchical ruling class, and so are many state and local governments. Elected and unelected officials are breaking law and convention left and right.
Generalities help no one here but the oppressors.
- intermerda 2 months agoYeah Schindler should have been arrested too. Too bad a law breaker has been so celebrated in history.
- MisterBastahrd 2 months agoIf that immigrant is there, then they're going to have to show up to the court proceedings. The time to intercept said person is directly after the hearing takes place, but these morons have no problem interrupting a hearing to take someone into custody. This is about the executive trying to walk all over the judicial branch.
- sixothree 2 months agoHe was literally in the courthouse. It's not like he went out the back entrance.
edit: maybe he did go out of the back entrance? But the video I have seen of his arrest definitely looks like it was the inside of a courthouse.
- mbrumlow 2 months ago[flagged]
- mbrumlow 2 months ago
- mindslight 2 months agoCorrect. By the article's details, it does not seem that the judge lied to the agents but rather told them some inconvenient step they had to perform per the Court's jurisdiction. Trump's Schutzstaffel can put on their big boy pants and make grownup decisions like whether they all need to run in one direction like Keystone Cops, or whether maybe someone should remain following their target. In the best case it sounds like they were idiots who didn't like the repercussions of their own actions. In the likely case, they deliberately did the stupid thing so they'd have a pretext to attack the judge and push us even further into strongman authoritarianism.
- dekhn 2 months ago
- nwienert 2 months ago[flagged]
- MyOutfitIsVague 2 months agoThe J6 pardons make it exceptionally clear that they aren't interested in enforcing any laws. It's abuse of the legal system for their benefit.
- kashunstva 2 months ago> They are enforcing the law, finally.
That is far from clear. The facts are emerging slowly; so the sequence described below may ultimately be inaccurate… but, ICE agents interrupted a court hearing. The judge presiding over the hearing asked the agents to leave. When they returned, the subject whom the ICE officers were seeking had already left. Is there a law that compels a judge (or anyone, for that matter) to remand someone sought by ICE to their custody? I genuinely don’t know, but were I put in a similar situation I would not hand anyone over to ICE custody given their terrible human rights history. Laws be damned; they and the administration whom they represent are moral failures.
- xpe 2 months agoI think the claim underneath the comment above is that immigration laws have been not been enforced or unevenly been enforced. On principle, advocating for a consistent application of the law seems sensible. This goes along with advocating for the rule of law.
Let's talk about justice, too. Many people believe true justice transcends any particular instantiation of the law at any particular point in time. If so, advocating for the consistent application of all laws can only be truly just if the laws are just.
Look at present circumstances. Reporting has shown that Trump is doing extraordinary rendition: removing people without due process. And not bringing them home after admitting the mistake. Once this reality is factored in, where is the justice in consistently applying a law in order to extrajudicially render a person?
Clearly, the Trump administration has a double standard regarding the rule of law and the role of the judiciary.
Note: this comment surely needs another draft, but I'm running out of time. I welcome all criticism.
P.S. At the risk of surfacing even more complexity, even if a system were to consistently apply one set of criteria, such as ICE's authority to arrest, it is likely that other criteria apply; namely, allocating personnel in a way that best carries out their overall mission. It is my (educated) guess that practical concerns (such as resource limitations) is one of the reasons courts give administrative agencies considerable flexibility in what laws they enforce.
- nwienert 2 months agoIt is in fact the Biden admin that played the game to win - importing tens of millions of people by opening the borders, loosening prosecution, flying them in, and basically doing anything and everything to allow it.
The American voters were never for this, always overwhelmingly against. It’s a non-partisan issue. Only big business and Democratic politicians benefit.
Then, when the new admin tries to remove illegal entrants, suddenly they care a lot about the law. Well, it was illegal for them to come, it’s legal to remove them. Due process only applies to citizens. There’s nothing more legal (and frankly popular with voters) than removing people who are here illegally. To import tens of millions without due process only to turn around and cry about needing it to remove them is the height of hypocrisy and also would be giving them de-facto citizenship, it would take years in court to process each one, where it takes only a couple days to cross the border.
- nwienert 2 months ago
- jibal 2 months agoWhat law are they enforcing?
- MyOutfitIsVague 2 months ago
- rgreeko42 2 months ago
- guywithahat 2 months agoLying to cops (and FBI) is a crime. This judge knew it was illegal but did it anyways to let criminals get away.
This isn't controversial.
- Gabriel54 2 months agoPeople are arrested in court every day. Why a judge would risk their career to prevent ICE from executing a warrant for someone's arrest confounds me.
- mempko 2 months agoBecause the judge appears to have basic morals
- cosmicgadget 2 months agoHer career might get more difficult if witnesses stop showing up to court because they fear deportation that skips due process.
- thrance 2 months agoYou're right, she should have let ICE illegally send the guy straight to an El Salvador dark site with no due process.
- mempko 2 months ago
- mempko 2 months ago[flagged]
- tomhow 2 months agoWe detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43796024.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Eschew flamebait.
- throwawa14223 2 months agoHow so?
- renewedrebecca 2 months ago[flagged]
- bufferoverflow 2 months ago[flagged]
- bufferoverflow 2 months ago
- renewedrebecca 2 months ago
- Jensson 2 months agoCalling an illegal act heroic doesn't hold up in court though, we will hear what they say in court later.
- mvdtnz 2 months ago[flagged]
- tomhow 2 months agoComments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Eschew flamebait.
- tomhow 2 months ago
- tomhow 2 months ago
- ConspiracyFact 2 months agoI just read the complaint. What’s the problem? Was the administrative warrant invalid? According to the complaint, the agents didn’t enter the courtroom, but rather waited in the hall, where they were approached by the judge. If the judge directed the defendant to a back door never used by defendants not in custody, that’s clearly obstruction.
- maximinus_thrax 2 months agoI'm fairly certain that a sitting judge who's a former president of the bar association knows the law better than you or me or Crack Patel and is more aware of the legal ramifications than random armchair lawyers.
From my personal armchair, this will go nowhere, the accusation has no basis. Something similar happened before and the charges were dropped. This was just an attempt to intimidate the judiciary. I hope the SCOTUS is happy with the monster they created.
- Slava_Propanei 2 months ago[dead]
- Slava_Propanei 2 months ago
- maximinus_thrax 2 months ago
- DrillShopper 2 months agoIf you're as incensed about this as I am, you can call the Milwaukee County Republican Party HQ at 414-897-7202 and let them know what you think. They're inclusive and open to dialog per their page at https://www.mkegop.com/, so I'm sure they'd love to hear from you.
- ericras 2 months ago[flagged]
- kashunstva 2 months ago> liberals elsewhere
Have you considered the possibility that the objections here may be more related to an apparent attack on the judicial branch rather than the desire to protect a person residing illegally in the United States?
- kashunstva 2 months ago
- ericras 2 months ago
- chmorgan_ 2 months agoThe irony that the judge would likely have held you in contempt if you didn't obey one of their orders but seems to think it's ok to help people pursued by other law enforcement to skip out. The judge should know that even they aren't above the law and they can't override other judicial and administrative rulings just because they disagree with them.
- cosmicgadget 2 months ago> they disagree with them
All I see on the rationale is:
> if any attorney or other court official “knows or believes that a person feels unsafe coming to the courthouse to courtroom 615,” they should notify the clerk and request an appearance via Zoom.
Did I miss an alternative explanation from the judge?
- exegete 2 months agoWhat judge gave ICE the warrant?
- cosmicgadget 2 months ago