Condemning the Arrest of Judge Hannah Dugan

Rule of Law Facts & Resources

The New York City Bar Association (“City Bar”) strongly condemns the arrest of Judge Hannah Dugan, a Milwaukee County Circuit Judge, and the subsequent filing of a criminal complaint charging her with obstruction and concealing an individual to prevent his discovery and arrest by members of the Milwaukee Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) Enforcement and Removal Operations (“ERO”) Task Force outside her courtroom. Such criminal charges, while not unheard of, are a departure from the norm, which is to refer such conduct for investigation by the appropriate judicial disciplinary body.

On April 18, 2025, members of the Milwaukee ICE ERO Task Force – including agents from the FBI, DEA and ICE – traveled to the Milwaukee County Courthouse to execute an administrative civil arrest warrant for the detention and removal of an individual from the United States. Outside Judge Dugan’s courtroom, Task Force officers spoke with Judge Dugan, who inquired whether they were present for a court appearance. When informed they were there to make an arrest, Judge Dugan properly inquired whether the officers had a judicial warrant. The ICE ERO officers acknowledged that they did not have one.[i]

ICE ERO Task Force officers instead provided Judge Dugan with an “administrative warrant.”[ii]  Such an administrative warrant does not have the force of a judicial arrest warrant, and state judges, state and local law enforcement, and others may have competing legal obligations under state and local laws and regulations that conflict with ICE’s objectives.

After reviewing the administrative warrant Judge Dugan directed the officers to speak with the Chief Judge and they were escorted away by court personnel. In discussions with ICE ERO Task Force members, the Chief Judge stated that a policy was being developed to designate specific locations within the courthouse where ICE could safely conduct enforcement actions, emphasizing that such actions should not occur in courtrooms or other private areas, i.e., areas not open to the public.[iii]

The subsequent criminal complaint against Judge Dugan alleges that she expedited the target’s hearing while ICE officers were engaged with the Chief Judge and that she permitted the target to exit through a jury access door into a public hallway. The individual and his attorney then left the courthouse via a public elevator and public entrance, after which ICE ERO Task Force Members apprehended him outside. Following these events, the FBI filed a criminal complaint against Judge Dugan, charging her with obstruction and concealing an individual, citing her alleged facilitation of the target’s exit through a side door.

In a public statement, Attorney General Pamela Bondi stated that individuals, including members of the judiciary, who are charged with obstructing deportation processes were “deranged” and implied that any individual, including judges engaging in the lawful performance of their duties, could become targets of criminal prosecution.[iv] Judge Dugan’s arrest coupled with AG Bondi’s statements appear to be a calculated show of force designed to intimidate state court judges and chill their exercise of independent judgment.

Every state maintains policies regarding the appropriate execution of administrative warrants within judicial facilities. In New York, for example, state law precludes judges, state agencies, and state and local law enforcement from providing information or assistance to ICE or from permitting ICE to make a civil arrest in state facilities unless an ICE agent possesses an appropriate judicial warrant.[v] This policy is meant to protect all litigants coming into the Court, and encourage the public to avail themselves of appropriate judicial processes when necessary. Similarly, Judge Dugan’s actions appear to comply with Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers’ recently-issued guidance for interacting with ICE officials by obtaining information from them, not providing them with any information concerning the target, and referring ICE to the judge’s superiors at the courthouse.[vi]  Indeed, the criminal complaint against Judge Dugan acknowledges that the Chief Judge was in the process of designating particular areas as appropriate places to make such a civil arrest and reportedly requested information from the ICE ERO Task Force members as to where he could contact individuals at ICE to discuss courthouse policy.

Historically, allegations against judges for similar conduct have been referred to the appropriate judicial disciplinary bodies, not pursued through criminal prosecution. In 2004, Justice Laura D. Blackburne of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Queens County, was accused of obstructing a criminal proceeding and her case was subsequently referred to the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct.[vii] In 2022, federal charges against Massachusetts state judge Shelley Joseph, allegedly for interfering with ICE, similar to the allegations against Judge Dugan, were ultimately dropped after referral to the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct for review.[viii]

There is no principled reason why Judge Dugan’s situation should be treated differently from past precedent. Criminalizing judicial conduct that traditionally falls within the scope of administrative review of alleged judicial misconduct undermines the independence of the judiciary, erodes separation of powers, and erodes confidence in the court system. The abrupt arrest of a sitting judge, in the absence of the well-established practice of providing advance notice when charging a public official and thus allowing her to turn herself in, accompanied by inflammatory statements by the nation’s highest ranking law enforcement officer, threatens the effective operation and independent administration of justice by the judicial branch.

Recognizing that judicial officers are not above the law and must be held accountable for their conduct, the New York City Bar urges that any proceedings involving Judge Dugan be conducted with full transparency, adherence to due process, and respect for the special role judges play in our legal system. Political, personal or extrajudicial motivations have no place in any proceedings seeking to hold judges accountable for their conduct.

About the Association
The mission of the New York City Bar Association, which was founded in 1870 and has over 20,000 members, is to equip and mobilize a diverse legal profession to practice with excellence, promote reform of the law, and uphold the rule of law and access to justice in support of a fair society and the public interest in our community, our nation, and throughout the world. www.nycbar.org