FBI arrests judge accused of helping man evade immigration authorities

2025-04-2515:251004940apnews.com

Democratic Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers says the Trump administration is trying to “undermine our judiciary” following the arrest of a Milwaukee judge accused of helping a man evade immigration…

MILWAUKEE (AP) — The FBI on Friday arrested a Milwaukee judge accused of helping a man evade immigration authorities, escalating a clash between the Trump administration and local authorities over the Republican president’s sweeping immigration crackdown.

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.

The judge’s arrest dramatically escalates tensions between federal authorities and state and local officials, whom President Donald Trump’s administration has accused of interfering with his immigration enforcement priorities. It also comes amid a growing battle between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary over the president’s executive actions over deportations and other matters.

Democratic Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers in a statement on the arrest accused the Trump administration of “repeatedly use dangerous rhetoric to attack and attempt to undermine our judiciary at every level.”

“I have deep respect for the rule of law, our nation’s judiciary, the importance of judges making decisions impartially without fear or favor, and the efforts of law enforcement to hold people accountable if they commit a crime,” Evers said. “I will continue to put my faith in our justice system as this situation plays out in the court of law.”

Dugan was taken into custody by the FBI on Friday morning on the courthouse grounds, according to U.S. Marshals Service spokesperson Brady McCarron. She appeared briefly in federal court in Milwaukee later Friday before being released from custody. She faces charges of “concealing an individual to prevent his discovery and arrest” and obstructing or impeding a proceeding.

“Judge Dugan wholeheartedly regrets and protests her arrest. It was not made in the interest of public safety,” her attorney, Craig Mastantuono, said during the hearing. He declined to comment to an Associated Press reporter following her court appearance.

Court papers suggest Dugan was alerted to the presence of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in the courthouse by her clerk, who was informed by an attorney that they appeared to be in the hallway.

The FBI affidavit describes Dugan as “visibly angry” over the arrival of immigration agents in the courthouse and says that she pronounced the situation “absurd” before leaving the bench and retreating to her chambers. It says she and another judge later approached members of the arrest team inside the courthouse, displaying what witnesses described as a “confrontational, angry demeanor.”

After a back-and-forth with officers over the warrant for the man, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, she demanded that the arrest team speak with the chief judge and led them away from the courtroom, the affidavit says.

After directing the arrest team to the chief judge’s office, investigators say Dugan returned to the courtroom was and was heard saying words to the effect of “wait, come with me” before ushering Flores-Ruiz and his lawyer through a jury door into a non-public area of the courthouse. The action was unusual, the affidavit says, because “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.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi said that the man was facing domestic violence charges and that victims were sitting in the courtroom with state prosecutors when the judge helped him escape immigration arrest.

The judge “put the lives of our law enforcement officers at risk. She put the lives of citizens at risk. A street chase -- it’s absurd that that had to happen,” Bondi said on Fox News Channel.

U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, a Democrat who represents Wisconsin, called the arrest of a sitting judge a “gravely serious and drastic move” that “threatens to breach” the separation of power between the executive and judicial branches.

“Make no mistake, we do not have kings in this country and we are a Democracy governed by laws that everyone must abide by,” Baldwin said in an emailed statement. “By relentlessly attacking the judicial system, flouting court orders, and arresting a sitting judge, this President is putting those basic Democratic values that Wisconsinites hold dear on the line.”

The case is similar to one brought during the first Trump administration against a Massachusetts judge, who was accused of helping a man sneak out a back door of a courthouse to evade a waiting immigration enforcement agent.

That prosecution sparked outrage from many in the legal community, who slammed the case as politically motivated. Prosecutors dropped the case against Newton District Judge Shelley Joseph in 2022 under the Democratic Biden administration after she agreed to refer herself to a state agency that investigates allegations of misconduct by members of the bench.

The Justice Department had previously signaled that it was going to crack down on local officials who thwart federal immigration efforts.

The department in January ordered prosecutors to investigate for potential criminal charges any state and local officials who obstruct or impede federal functions. As potential avenues for prosecution, a memo cited a conspiracy offense as well as a law prohibiting the harboring of people in the country illegally.

Dugan was elected in 2016 to the county court Branch 31. She also has served in the court’s probate and civil divisions, according to her judicial candidate biography.

Before being elected to public office, Dugan practiced at Legal Action of Wisconsin and the Legal Aid Society. She graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981 with a bachelor of arts degree and earned her Juris Doctorate in 1987 from the school.

___

Richer reported from Washington. Associated Press reporter Eric Tucker in Washington contributed.


Read the original article

Comments

  • By Animats 2025-04-2518:468 reply

    A 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...

    • By lolinder 2025-04-2520:027 reply

      Another 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).

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obstruction_of_justice

      • By hayst4ck 2025-04-2521:216 reply

        This 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?

        • By lolinder 2025-04-2521:294 reply

          > 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.

          • By frognumber 2025-04-2522:391 reply

            The truth is somewhere in the middle.

            There was a similar case in Massachusetts many years back. It never went to trial, and legal analysis could go both ways. The bargain struct was it would go into secretive judicial oversight channels.

            There is a strong case to be made for obstruction of justice, and an equally strong case to be made about her making an error in her professional capacity as a judge and a government employee (which grants a level of immunity). Police officers, judges, soldiers, etc. make mistakes, but they generally don't go to jail for them because (even corruption aside) everyone makes mistakes. In some jobs, mistakes can and do have severe consequences up to and including people dying. If that led to prison, no one sane would take those jobs.

            In any sane universe, it'd be fair to say she screwed up, and then the FBI also screwed up arresting her. I think the FBI screwed up more, since their mistake was premeditated, whereas she was put on the spot.

            I do agree with your fundamental point of fatigue. This is not something anyone has a moral high ground to hang their flag on without looking bad.

            • By s1artibartfast 2025-04-2523:512 reply

              What was the honest mistake the judge made?

              • By frognumber 2025-04-260:412 reply

                I usually read coverage from different sides. If you don't realize where she screwed up, look at Fox News. If you don't realize where the FBI screwed up, look at NY Times.

                Fox News perspective is that she broke court procedures in order to obstruct federal agents.

                Prior cases seem to support that:

                https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/massachusetts-judge-court-...

                Case concluded with some kind of judicial reprimand (not criminal, but administrative). This one is further over the line.

                Neutral description to LLM also supports that the judge acted improperly (but LLM didn't think this would lead to a conviction). LLMs aren't great at legal analysis, but are actually pretty good at pattern-matching cases.

                One thing helpful to have is a lawful plan. The courthouse might have handled ICE without breaking protocols by having protocols. Protocols should be prima facie neutral, but it's reasonable to expect people in courts, schools, and other places we actually want them to show up to feel safe there. That shouldn't involve sneaking people through back doors or hiding them in jury areas.

                • By xracy 2025-04-261:161 reply

                  Why would I trust that an "entertainment" network like fox news would provide a good legal analysis of how a judge messed up the law? LLMs are worse than this.

                  ICE has been regularly overstepping its bounds and going after people in ways that impact our legal system's ability to function. This is a terrible precedent to set for no other reason than it impacts the rule of law. If people who are accused of crimes can be disappeared without a trial, just for showing up to court, what incentive is there for anyone to go to court? They are literally ignoring the "innocent until proven guilty" that is critical to the rule of law.

                  If you take away people's ability to get justice within the system, you are making it inevitable that they will go outside the system to get justice.

                  • By frognumber 2025-04-262:021 reply

                    Ergo, I posted a link to an analogous legal situation in Massachusetts.

                    We can agree with what the judge did, but it doesn't make it legal.

                    We can also agree that ICE is breaking laws, but it also doesn't make what the judge did legal. It does help a bit -- in another comment I explained why -- but not enough to change the legal analysis.

                    As a footnote, modern LLMs aren't worse than Fox News. They have a lot of case law in their training set. They make mistakes so shouldn't yet be used for anything critical, but the legal analysis from Claude or GPT4.1 is a lot better than e.g. 95% of forum posts here.

                    • By xracy 2025-04-262:21

                      I don't know that I have the brainpower to analyze 95% of the forum posts on here. And less to determine what I think is "better", so I guess I'll drop the point.

                • By s1artibartfast 2025-04-262:331 reply

                  Does screw up as you use it mean knowingly and intentionally breaking the law, or mean it was accidental and unintentional?

                  It might be a mistake to beat someone bloody, but it isn't an accident.

                  • By frognumber 2025-04-2622:231 reply

                    I'm not sure what you're asking.

                    Let's say I beat someone bloody. We can play through several scenarios:

                    - Someone broke into my house, and I was fearful for my life

                    - Plain clothes police broke into my house, and I was fearful for my life

                    Let's say a police officer did so:

                    - Someone was a gang member, and the police officer did so in self-defense

                    - Ditto, based on mistaken beliefs

                    A lot of the protections in place for police and judges are based on the fact that mistakes like these happen. In general, people aren't individually liable for mistakes make in their official capacity as a government employee, unless they cross very extreme lines. They might get fired, but not prosecuted.

                    There are exceptions (such as handling of classified materials), but as a guideline, if a police officer beats someone bloody, but has good reason to believe they were a criminal and that this was the least force they could use to keep themselves safe, they're protected even if they're wrong.

                    • By s1artibartfast 2025-04-275:502 reply

                      Im talking about intent: knowingly and intentionally breaking the law.

                      I understand that honest mistakes happen due to inaccurate information, understand, ect.

                      - e.g. you thought a cop was a burglar.

                      These are different from poor and regrettable choices, also sometimes referred to as "mistakes".

                        - I beat my wife because I caught them cheating. 
                      
                      There may be an interpretation of this situation where judge did not understand their situation and actions, but I don't find it very probable. It seems clear that they were trying to help the target of a legal warrant evade law enforcement apprehension, and knew exactly what they were doing.

                      • By frognumber 2025-04-2816:28

                        People do dumb things in stressful situations. To your "I beat my wife because I caught them cheating" example, there's a world of difference between:

                        1) I walked in. An argument and a fight ensued.

                        2) I found out about it, went of and thought, and made the choice.

                        There's a hierarchy, including:

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provocation_(law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity_defense

                        I find it entirely probable that the judge didn't know or understand, in the moment, their situation and the implications of their actions. Indeed, I will go one step further. If ICE does illegal things 100 times, then it's reasonable to expect an unreasonable reaction maybe 10% of the time.

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximate_cause

                        If I were a judge, and someone came into court with an "administrative warrant," I might not want them disturbing my courthouse either. I might want parties to feel safe there, and be concerned about miscarriages of justice if parties are scared to show up.

                      • By frognumber 2025-04-2816:29

                        People do dumb things in stressful situations. To your "I beat my wife because I caught them cheating" example, there's a world of difference between:

                        1) I walked in. An argument and a fight ensued.

                        2) I found out about it, went of and thought, and made the choice.

                        There's a hierarchy, including:

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provocation_(law)

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity_defense

                        I find it entirely probable that the judge didn't know or understand, in the moment, their situation and the implications of their actions. Indeed, I will go one step further. If ICE does illegal things 100 times, then it's reasonable to expect an unreasonable reaction maybe 10% of the time.

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximate_cause

                        If I were a judge, and someone came into court with an "administrative warrant," I might not want them disturbing my courthouse either. I might want parties to feel safe there, and be concerned about miscarriages of justice if parties are scared to show up.

                        The trick here is to have policies ahead-of-time, and especially, to let judges know about this sort of thing ahead-of-time. If police show up at my door, I might make a mistake. If they let me know ahead of time, and I have time to think, I hopefully won't.

              • By ruraljuror 2025-04-260:42

                Judge thinks ICE is illegally abducting people. The ideas are laid out pretty clearly in the grandparent comment. It’s not clear what is right and wrong because ICE is skipping due process and rendering people to foreign prisons.

          • By daseiner1 2025-04-2522:321 reply

            > we have no reason to believe at this time that she didn't!

            this is not the standard of guilt and i think you know that

            i also think you know that this is merely the latest incident in an extended, obvious campaign to override the judiciary.

            • By lolinder 2025-04-2522:361 reply

              It's not about the standard of guilt in court, it's about political capital and effective rhetoric.

              There are so many cases where the Trump administration has flagrantly violated rule of law. Why would we waste time fighting them in the court of public opinion on a case where things currently appear to be open and shut in the other direction?

              When those on the fence see us getting up in arms about something where to all appearances the "victim" actually did break the law and is being given due process, we lose credibility. If we instead save our breath for the many many cases that actually have compelling facts, it's harder for them to tune us out.

              In ux design this is called alert fatigue, and it matters in politics too.

              • By daseiner1 2025-04-2522:39

                > When those on the fence see us getting up in arms about something where to all appearances the "victim" actually did break the law and is being given due process, we lose credibility. If we instead save our breath for the many many cases that actually have compelling facts, it's harder for them to tune us out.

                those cases are the least important to the defense of due process rights. but i'll concede that you're likely correct at the level of the broader populace given that our civic education is an embarrassment and has been for decades.

          • By pyuser583 2025-04-263:15

            Is the AP just reciting facts from the FBI. Anytime the “fact” ends with “said John Doe,” the “fact” is merely a claim by John Doe.

            Verification of claims is extremely rare. Especially for breaking news like this.

            I haven’t gone down this rabbit hole. But reporters mostly just recite interviews.

        • By belorn 2025-04-2522:52

          > 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.

        • By kcplate 2025-04-263:58

          > 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.

        • By Jensson 2025-04-2521:331 reply

          Then 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.

          • By hayst4ck 2025-04-2522:052 reply

            Salami slicing is the first page of the present day authoritarian play book.

            Here's an excerpt from They Thought They Were Free, a book about the mindset of ordinary Germans experiencing the rise of the Nazi Government:

            Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even talk alone; you don’t want to “go out of your way to make trouble.” Why not?—Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.

            Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, “everyone” is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. You speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, “It’s not so bad” or “You’re seeing things” or “You’re an alarmist.”

            And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can’t prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don’t know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic. You are left with your close friends, who are, naturally, people who have always thought as you have.

            ...

            But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds of thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions, would have been sufficiently shocked—if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in ’43 had come immediately after the “German Firm” stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33. But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all of the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.

            • By Jensson 2025-04-2522:414 reply

              [flagged]

              • By pas 2025-04-2523:461 reply

                why do you think it's turning people against them?

              • By hayst4ck 2025-04-2522:511 reply

                Infighting is how liberalism loses. While we sit and deliberate on whether this is the slice that merits actions, they are making plans to arrest more judges.

                The point of that excerpt is that there is not and likely will never be one single unifying objectionable action that provokes people into acting and we will slow walk our way into atrocity through inaction.

                The argument being made is that it will continually get worse every single day. Every action will slowly become more egregious. A judge arrested politically, but for cause, today will be a judge arrested without cause tomorrow, but we will have adapted to see judges being arrested for blatantly political reasons as a new norm.

                The facts and nuance will change faster than we can adapt and while we pontificate on whether this is the one that's worth it, the next bad thing will have already happened. More power will have been consolidated.

                Taking in the truth requires action, so anything that lets people stay in denial or bury their heads is clung to in order to protect mental health. Eventually it will be too late, and you will wonder when you should have acted knowing you are no longer able to.

                • By Jensson 2025-04-2523:01

                  The most important part is to get the people on your side, that is how you win. If an action results in less support for your side then you shouldn't do it if you want to win, it hurts you.

                  So all I am saying, stop hurting yourself, that only help your enemies. It is not me hurting you, it is you hurting you. This was how the Democrats lost the election, it wasn't Trump that won it was Democrats that lost it by hurting themselves over and over.

              • By michaelmrose 2025-04-262:09

                The sum of those small slices is already great. There is no logical reason to react only to each individual event and not the sum of them or better yet the sum or what has been openly planned.

                In the face of obvious fascism those who would be "turned against" their fellows by dint of honest and justified alarm are already "against" them now. They can only be opposed not convinced. They are either honest villains or live virtually entirely in their fantasy wholly disconnected from reality.

              • By kelseyfrog 2025-04-2522:461 reply

                Just wait until you get to the part of the They Thought They Were Free where it mentions over-reacting. That strategy doesn't work.

                There is no moment of egregious violation. It never comes. Even when the state is clearly totalitarian there were Germans holding out hope that Germany would lose the war. As if that was their final straw.

                The salami is purposefully sliced thin enough that one slice on it's own will never provoke enough outrage. How do you hope to oppose that?

                • By Jensson 2025-04-2522:502 reply

                  So did the over-reactions work? If they didn't then why double down on a losing strategy?

                  • By michaelmrose 2025-04-262:15

                    Be clear what over reactions are you talking about in the context of rise of the nazis and what overreactions do you see here?

                    Building a personal army and pissing in the woods whilst you drill and prepare for civil war 2.0 electric boogaloo would be an overreaction, this is a strongly worded letter against arresting judges. This is the absolute minimum anyone could possibly be expected to do.

                  • By kelseyfrog 2025-04-2523:121 reply

                    The point was that conceding to the over-reactive label isn't a viable strategy The people of 1955 - just 10 years after WW2 - realized that taking a stand, even against a salami was the better strategy than avoiding the over-reactive label.

                    Why re-use a strategy that, when we tried it, led to Nazi Germany? Do we expect it to succeed this time?

                    • By Jensson 2025-04-2523:342 reply

                      This law and the banning of the other political parties was the egregious step that people should have rebelled and taken up arms against, you can't say this was just a tiny "salami slice":

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Against_the_Formation_of_P...

                      You want to have all the political capital left when that law happens, instead of wasting it defending rotten scraps. Wasting so much energy and political capacity on scraps means there is no energy left when the big things hits, that is exactly where your current strategy is taking you.

                      > Why re-use a strategy that, when we tried it, led to Nazi Germany? Do we expect it to succeed this time?

                      People killed Nazis before they came to power, they weren't using legal or nice strategies as defense back then either. That was the wrong way, it only increased support for the Nazis.

                      • By kelseyfrog 2025-04-260:121 reply

                        Let me summarize what I'm hearing and you tell me where I get it wrong.

                        We should hold back, let the authoritarians do their thing, until there is critical support against an authoritarian power grab and then act when we have overwhelming strength?

                        • By Jensson 2025-04-260:492 reply

                          When fighting back helps your enemy, then yes then you shouldn't do it. That is pretty obvious.

                          Don't fight back when the terrain favors your enemy even if it is your land, you fight where you can win. War isn't won by who holds the most land, but by who defeats the enemy troops. You need to build support from the people, not do things that lose support.

                          • By Teever 2025-04-2616:14

                            There's a metarule to the rule that you're discussing.

                            "Don't struggle -- only within the ground rules that the people you're struggling against have laid down."

                            If fighting back helps your enemy, don't just pause and not fight back. Change the state of the system so that the most effective thing -- fighting back -- is viable.

                            Get inside their OODA loop. Change the rhythm of things so that it suits your needs and not theirs.

                          • By kelseyfrog 2025-04-260:551 reply

                            Can you sketch out the type of person who see fighting back over these things as an over-reaction? Who are they? I've never met one, so it's hard to imagine they're real.

                            • By Jensson 2025-04-260:581 reply

                              Your average Fox News reader. You might not like it but they also get to vote.

                              And no, even the people who watches Fox News do not want USA to become a fascist state, they like their democracy.

                              • By kelseyfrog 2025-04-261:001 reply

                                And I'm trying to not provoke them so that they reach a point where we lock arms and resist authoritarianism together?

                                • By Jensson 2025-04-261:053 reply

                                  Yes, as long as they hate fascism more than they hate you they will help you defeat fascism when the time comes. But if you have built up enough resentment over the years then they will pick fascism over you.

                                  It happened in Germany and could happen in USA.

                                  • By kelseyfrog 2025-04-261:09

                                    Got it. So they're playing "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting," card and they've convinced us that by holding back we'll have a chance to meet them when the time comes, but by then it's too late. They'll have made the possibility of resistance meaningless.

                                    Thank you for the insightful discussion.

                                  • By CamperBob2 2025-04-264:141 reply

                                    Yes, as long as they hate fascism more than they hate you

                                    They absolutely do not. We know that.

                                    They are cultists. They will cut off their own foot if it means a "lib" loses his leg.

                                    • By hellojesus 2025-04-2613:591 reply

                                      If you haven't previously, I recommend spending time consuming right leaning media.

                                      I find that both right and left media tend to say the same things about the other side. It's a bit wild when you first realize it, when you hear your exact arguments about the others being said by the others about you.

                                      Finding common ground is always the best path. Determine where the actual differences are beyond the meme propaganda, and you may be able to better connect with other world views.

                                      • By CamperBob2 2025-04-2614:151 reply

                                        I find that both right and left media tend to say the same things about the other side

                                        The left tends to be more likely to be correct, however (speaking as someone who identifies with neither.) This isn't a matter of opinion; polls have repeatedly found that Fox News viewers, for example, are less well-informed than people who consume no news at all.

                                        "BSAB" thinking doesn't work. No good reasons remain for pretending that it does. One side is objectively and consistently bad for America... but they are better at herding dull-witted people to the polls, so they are winning.

                                        • By kelseyfrog 2025-04-2618:121 reply

                                          It used to feel smart: "Both sides are bad." It signaled discernment, wisdom, immunity to empty tribalism. We thought neutrality made us wiser.

                                          But detachment isn’t a moral stance; it’s a luxury belief from a world where the system mostly worked. Today, one side has abandoned the rules entirely. Neutrality isn't wisdom anymore. Neutrality is abdication.

                                          "Both sides are bad" was an optimization for an environment that doesn't exist anymore: shared facts, rational actors, institutional guardrails. We live in the failure modes now: information war, procedural collapse, manufactured resentment.

                                          We aren't floating above it. We’re being crushed by it. And the longer we cling to detached cleverness, the more we surrender to people who act without waiting for certainty.

                                          Yes, action without clarity is dangerous. Yes, there are wrong moves that make collapse worse. But paralysis, waiting, hoping, optimizing forever for a world that already ended kills just the same. It only feels cleaner on the way down.

                                          They already moved. We're still here, swirling the last drops of neutrality in our glasses, mistaking abdication for wisdom, even as the last undergirders of the state give way beneath us.

                                          • By hellojesus 2025-04-274:431 reply

                                            The left seems to be more correct on things, but at the same time they run wild campaigns like the butchering of private property: george floyd riots, telsa defacement.

                                            I also see lunacy in terms of economic policies, especially those pushed by progressives like AOC. The party seems a bit too socialist for me, though I appreciate the push for individual liberties when they embrace more classically liberal positions.

                                            • By CamperBob2 2025-04-2915:081 reply

                                              at the same time they run wild campaigns like the butchering of private property

                                              January 6, and Trump's subsequent pardon of the rioters, cost you every last drop of the moral authority you need in order to say things like that.

                                              Yes, there is lunacy on the left that does not sleep... but at least their breed of idiot means well. Historically, when you pit the misguided motivations of an AOC against the active malevolence of a Trump, the latter usually beat the former handily. And as usual, when elephants fight, the mice get trampled.

                                              • By hellojesus 2025-04-3014:39

                                                > January 6, and Trump's subsequent pardon of the rioters, cost you every last drop of the moral authority you need in order to say things like that.

                                                I don't think Jan 6 was good in the slightest. Idiots idioting. But at least those idiots were idioting against federal property and not the property of private citizens - again, both are very bad and inexcusable in my book; I'm just clarifying why I didn't include Jan 6.

                                  • By ImPostingOnHN 2025-04-2714:29

                                    > Yes, as long as they hate fascism

                                    Really big conditional. A huge amount love fascism, in terms of sharing the same values and desires. How can they resist the allure: "we'll give you everything you want, and you won't even have to work for it by convincing others you're right, because we'll crush those who oppose us".

                                    As long as they believe they'll always be the ones in power (see the crushing dissent part), they see that as a dream come true. Just look at how conservatives have openly opposed due process and judicial checks and balances over the executive branch lately*.

                                    * – Which country am I discussing here? Could be a few lately!

                      • By hayst4ck 2025-04-2523:451 reply

                        By the time that happens, everyone who understands what is happening will have already left because people like you want to wait until power is consolidated to such an extent that it can't be reasonably fought.

                        That law was enacted after they thought they had the power to do it, not before as with every salami slicing action. If they think there will be a response, they back off while they continue to slice.

                        You talk about political capital like it's in a bank account just waiting to be spent, while political capital is being lost through inaction itself, especially in people seeing that it's more rational to run than fight.

                        Schumer's strategy to wait for 40% unpopularity didn't save any political capital, just the opposite, it demoralized everyone on his side, destroyed resolve, and shattered solidarity.

                        What is the difference between https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Against_the_Formation_of_P... and https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/trump-actblu...

                        Intent is already declared, time passes which allows power to consolidate. When would it be easier to act, after several months of power consolidation?

                        • By Jensson 2025-04-260:091 reply

                          > What is the difference between https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Against_the_Formation_of_P... and https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/trump-actblu...

                          You are crazy if you don't see the difference...

                          • By hayst4ck 2025-04-260:141 reply

                            You are crazy if you don't see the difference.

                            It's not a difference in goal, it's a difference in level of power consolidation. They would already have enacted that law if they thought they had the power to do it, the fact that they haven't means that they think it would cause a response they couldn't win against. As soon as they think they can win, they will do it.

                            So by not acting now, you ensure that that law is a possibility later.

                            Imagine I have a neighboring country who's land I want. They have 10,000 citizens, but I only have 5,000 bullets. I have a bullet factory that produces 1,000 bullets a month. Do I invade them right now or do I wait at least 5 months?

                            If I am the country with 10,000 citizens and I see my neighbor is producing bullets at maximum capacity, should I wait until I definitely know they will invade to mobilize my own manufacturing base/prepare my citizens for a potential invasion? What if they had already spent 2,000 bullets taking a 2,000 person state?

                            • By Jensson 2025-04-260:261 reply

                              > So by not acting now, you ensure that that law is a possibility later.

                              What do you mean "act now"? Do you want more people to go out and key tesla cars? You think that is going to make fascism less likely? No, stuff like that only strengthens fascism.

                              People fought Hitler at every turn in his rise to power often using less than legal means and violence, that only made him stronger.

                              > Imagine I have a neighboring country who's land I want. They have 10,000 citizens, but I only have 5,000 bullets. I have a bullet factory that produces 1,000 bullets a month. Do I invade them right now or do I wait at least 5 months?

                              Except that country is selling you the bullets, and they say they need to produce more bullets to win even though you just buy them.

                              My advice: Stop selling bullets to your enemy.

                              Your response: But they have so many bullets, we need to make more to defend ourselves, and of course we can't stop selling bullets since that will crash our market!

                              Like, each of those positions are fine in themselves, but the combination is devastating.

                              • By hayst4ck 2025-04-260:291 reply

                                I regret engaging with you, you are bad faith.

                                • By Jensson 2025-04-260:391 reply

                                  That isn't bad faith, I believe you want to do good, I am just explaining the consequences of your actions. Trump currently has higher support than at almost any time before, that is thanks to people like you who over react and fight even the reasonable things the Trump administration does with fervor.

                                  If I didn't believe in you then I wouldn't explain these things, I do it since I think things can change for the better.

                                  • By acdha 2025-04-260:461 reply

                                    Trump’s support is low and continuously dropping. At this point, Biden was over 20 points higher and Bush/Obama were both almost 40 points higher.

                                    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/polls/donald-trump-appro...

                                    • By Jensson 2025-04-260:561 reply

                                      It is still higher than at almost any point in his first term, that was after years of these things and all it resulted in is higher approval than before.

                                      So we can conclude that all that disparagement of Trump increases his support, or why else would it increase so much? The main thing that decreases support for Trump is when Trump does things like the tariffs, or all the insane stuff he has done so far.

                                      Approval dropping a bit due to Trump doing insane things isn't thanks to Democrats, that is his own fault. You want them to shoot them in the foot like that, like press hard on the insane tariffs etc, don't press on these issues where it is easy to defend him.

                                      • By dragonwriter 2025-04-261:05

                                        > It is still higher than at almost any point in his first term,

                                        Depending on which poll series you look at, it's at or a little below his support an equal time into his first term and either following a similar trajectory or dropping faster. It's true that it is still above most of the rest of his first term because his support dropped throughout the term, and it is a quarter of a year into a four year term.

                                        > So we can conclude that all that disparagement of Trump increases his support, or why else would it increase so much?

                                        It increased, insofar as it did, only when he was out of office. What seems to increase his support is him not having his hands on the levers of power.

            • By ClumsyPilot 2025-04-268:23

              You guys are basically on the path to be coming Russia.

        • By naijaboiler 2025-04-2612:25

          >>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

        • By c_exclu 2025-04-2522:50

          [flagged]

      • By mrandish 2025-04-2521:14

        Yes, 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.

      • By ocdtrekkie 2025-04-2523:28

        > 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.

      • By fc417fc802 2025-04-2619:59

        Notably 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.

      • By ivape 2025-04-2521:001 reply

        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

        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...

        • By lolinder 2025-04-2521:153 reply

          [flagged]

          • By jshen 2025-04-2522:37

            What's the lie? Who is lying?

          • By ivape 2025-04-2521:22

            The headline did not appear inaccurate to me, but I'll confess I'm not as great of a reader as some of you. The article seems to indicate the headline is correct from my reading comprehension. I always scored well on reading comprehension tests so I don't know, did I get dumber? Someone else read the article and settle it between me and the GP so we can get a conclusive answer.

            With that said, do you believe the Patriot Act was used only for terrorists?

            Great little scene from The Departed:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAKPWaJPR0Y

            Gangs and Terrorists are bad, but I believe we as a country went through this once already and you cannot create these precedents because they stick around. They're literally reusing Guantanamo Bay.

          • By lobotomizer 2025-04-2523:342 reply

            [flagged]

            • By RajT88 2025-04-260:21

              Indeed. And they have floated "deporting" citizens for "crimes".

              They have made it clear how they are treating immigrants is how they want to treat citizens.

              If you think the citizens they are targeting are "the bad ones", you just wait. Soon the "bad ones" category will get wider was well.

              Someone wrote a poem about this once. Their back story is very, very relevant.

              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_They_Came

            • By justin66 2025-04-261:06

              Hey, it's not arbitrary. They know how to interpret the secret meaning of your tattoos.

      • By JumpCrisscross 2025-04-2522:25

        > 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.

      • By ImPostingOnHN 2025-04-2521:052 reply

        [flagged]

        • By Jensson 2025-04-2521:131 reply

          Almost 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.

          • By ImPostingOnHN 2025-04-2521:471 reply

            I said minorities, not "illegal immigrants"

            many minorities otherwise here legally are also being persecuted

            • By Jensson 2025-04-2521:551 reply

              > many minorities otherwise here legally are also being persecuted

              Can you name one minority group that is being persecuted and have to hide? If you mean people critical of Trump then that is not a minority group, at least not in this context. It is wrong to deport them for that, but that isn't the same as "hunting down minorities".

              • By ImPostingOnHN 2025-04-260:19

                > Can you name one minority group that is being persecuted

                Sure: Immigrants.

                Also: International students, especially Palestinians who support their friends and family in Palestine.

        • By c_exclu 2025-04-2523:05

          [flagged]

    • By Gabriel54 2025-04-2518:574 reply

      There 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.

      • By ajross 2025-04-2519:225 reply

        It 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.

        • By maxlybbert 2025-04-2519:561 reply

          Immigration 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

          * https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10559

          * https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10362

          • By exe34 2025-04-2520:561 reply

            apparently immigration law infringement only goes to court if you're trying to stop them now - if they want to send you to a concentration camp, there's no right to due process.

            • By maxlybbert 2025-04-2521:221 reply

              The Alien Enemy Act is actually an incredibly old law (i.e., it’s not a new development). What is new is attempting to use it based on a declaration that there’s been a non-military invasion ( https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11269 ). I think it’s pretty clear that the Supreme Court is going to eventually strike that down, but the courts can only act in response to the cases they get, and only answer specific legal questions at different phases of those cases.

              But about a month ago, the Court did rule people who the government wanted to send to El Salvador have a due process right to challenge that decision in regular federal court as a habeas corpus proceeding ( https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf ). They later issued an order that the people covered by the original ruling cannot be deported based on the Alien Enemy Act until further notice ( https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/041925zr_c18... ).

              • By exe34 2025-04-2521:461 reply

                yes, the courts have been ruling, but the executive has been ignoring.

                • By MiguelX413 2025-05-0418:36

                  The supreme court even ruled unanimously.

        • By Jensson 2025-04-2520:332 reply

          > 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.

          • By ajross 2025-04-2520:472 reply

            > obstructed an arrest by changing standard procedure

            Which sounds awfully novel to me. You really want to tear down the structure of democracy over this kind of nitpicking on "procedure"?

            I remain horrified that people I really thought were normal Americans are willing to burn it all down just so they don't have to hear Spanish spoken in their doctor's office.

            • By mrandish 2025-04-2521:551 reply

              > I remain horrified that people I really thought were normal Americans are willing to burn it all down just so they don't have to hear Spanish spoken in their doctor's office.

              The GP (or GGP, I forget) was discussing very specific legal technical details surrounding the judge's actions, the nature of the warrant and permissible locations for serving the warrant. I was pretty interested in that discussion - even though I probably generally agree with your macro views on immigration policy. You chose to focus on something completely different, the overall aggregate outcomes of national political policies and jumped immediately to rhetoric like "tear down the structure of democracy".

              IMHO, an important part of "the structure of democracy" is the rule of law. Ideally, that means equal, impartial, consistent enforcement of the laws as written. If the circumstances were changed to this being 1962 Alabama and the defendant being the Grand Wizard of the local KKK and the judge snuck him out the back door because RFK had sent FBI agents from Washington to serve a warrant arresting the KKK Grand Wizard - would you think those discussing whether that judge might have technically obstructed justice were equally "tearing down the structure of democracy?"

              • By ty6853 2025-04-2522:172 reply

                Rule of law and its "equal, impartial, consistent enforcement" is totally a discretionary thing and very much by democratic support. The federal government has stopped enforcing low-level marijuana possession pretty much whole-sale, unless of course you show up at the wrong protests (see Timothy Teagan). Most people seem to think this is just dandy.

                I would say you would actually destroy "democracy" if you enforced the rule of law.

                • By dmix 2025-04-2522:52

                  > and very much by democratic support

                  Immigration was consistently polled as the most important issue to voters in the last US election.

                  https://www.axios.com/2024/02/27/immigration-americans-top-p...

                • By mrandish 2025-04-2523:431 reply

                  Call me hopelessly naive but I think it's generally a good thing to rescind laws we don't want to enforce (or choose to only occasionally enforce), fix laws that aren't working as intended, and actually enforce the remaining laws we keep.

                  >totally a discretionary thing

                  The example I posted about the KKK Grand Wizard being the judicially smuggled person was intended to demonstrate the grave danger of having enforcement of a law (in this case obstruction of justice) be "totally a discretionary thing." The same people who'd (hopefully) be "horrified" by a judge smuggling a KKK member away from law enforcement (pointy white hat and all), want to selectively give a hall pass to this judge for doing the same thing. Paraphrasing Monty Python and the Holy Grail, that's no basis to form a system of government.

                  > very much by democratic support.

                  If you're referring to elections, those are, at most, once every two years. I'm not sure how well cops are going to do their jobs with a two-year latency on "what crimes can we arrest people for today?" If you're referring to anything else, you're either endorsing mob rule (kinda the main reason 'rule of law' was invented back in Holy Grail times) or you're placing a lot of faith in "the current people in political, social and cultural power" always being exactly "the kind of righteous people who agree with me on everything important." Especially in light of recent events, I don't think that's a very solid governance plan either.

                  As a practical example, I'm kind of a wild-eyed radical on immigration. If I was anointed "King of the Land", I'd almost throw open the borders entirely to any and all comers (not quite, but pretty close). Of course, I'd also need to change some other things to make that work, but that's not important right now. And even though I'm that radical on immigration, back when some cities chose to become "Sanctuary Cities" by announcing the current elected officials had decided to just... stop doing their job of enforcing (some) laws - I wasn't happy like you might think. No, even though I liked the outcome in that one instance, it actually troubled me greatly that a handful of individuals elected in the public trust decided to unilaterally seize power by illegally subverting the constitution and their solemn oaths of office.

                  And the fact I felt that was very bad back then, even over something I generally agreed with, leaves me feeling like I'm on firm logical, ethical, legal and moral ground when it troubles me equally that Trump and his fellow travelers are abusing the public trust in, conceptually, the very same ways. If your support for "the rule of law" depends on who the current ruler is and whether they agree with your personal opinions. I think you're probably gonna have a bad time under any system of government that's not a monarchy or anarchy - with yourself as dictator for life.

                  On the other hand, I thought it was an incredibly dangerous and illegal expansion of presidential authority when Obama droned a U.S. citizen overseas without due process (even though that person was indeed an active terrorist). I'm funny that way about seizing power unconstitutionally. I'm always against it. No matter who does it or what they do with the stolen power. I hope those who are complaining today that Trump is using (and building on) the unconstitutional presidential power grab techniques that Obama pioneered, but didn't see a problem with it until someone they don't like started doing things they disagree with, are at least learning from this very hard lesson. Abuse of power is wrong no matter who does it or what they do.

                  • By ruraljuror 2025-04-261:051 reply

                    > but didn't see a problem with it until someone they don't like started doing things they disagree with, are at least learning from this very hard lesson. Abuse of power is wrong no matter who does it or what they do.

                    > If your support for "the rule of law" depends on who the current ruler is and whether they agree with your personal opinions.

                    This Obama comparison seems like a false equivalence because you are ignoring the _where_, i.e. within the U.S. vs a foreign battlefield.

                    • By mrandish 2025-04-261:49

                      The issue has been covered pretty extensively and is well worth looking into. It's been discussed and analyzed by several noted constitutional scholars.

                      It's been a while but IIRC it was unconstitutional because the president cannot unilaterally execute a U.S. citizen anywhere without due process except under certain conditions, none of which were met in this case. It wasn't a declared war ("War on Terror" was a PR slogan, not a congressional declaration of war). I think the fact it was targeted specifically at a named person and there were no exigent circumstances (like trying to free hostages or stopping an eminent attack) were also factors. But, based on the plain wording, this wasn't a close or subjective call. To be clear, while it was illegal and unconstitutional, I don't personally think killing this guy was morally unjustified. He was a shithead who spouted anti-American, pro-terrorist crap online. But he was basically a poseur in a cave in Yemen. He was never a material terror threat to the U.S. other than making online videos. He claimed allegiance with real terrorists but they never took him seriously because he was a fucking American and they'd be stupid not to assume he was a double-agent.

                      You're not alone in assuming dropping a missile on this guy must have been legally okay because of the surrounding circumstances. I mean, that can't just... happen, right? The U.S. had already droned lots of non-U.S. citizen enemy combatants. The guy was clearly a wannabe terrorist calling for jihad against the great Satan America. He was awful and unsympathetic in every possible way. He was in a country (Yemen I think) that was fighting a declared insurrection-ish war against the local jihad group that sort-of associated with the guy. And that country was a U.S. ally. But... none of those circumstances made killing him legal. Yemen didn't launch the missile. A U.S. soldier under direct presidential order did. Legally and constitutionally, what Obama did was no different than Trump ordering U.S. soldiers to execute a U.S. citizen on the White House lawn with no due process. Except I highly doubt U.S. soldiers would do that without the surrounding circumstances of being a known terrorist, in Yemen, droned like they'd legally done before to similar non-U.S. citizen terrorists. Unfortunately, all of those circumstances were legally and constitutionally irrelevant. And, of course, even Trump would never give such an order because he knows American's sensibilities would be shocked, and both parties in congress would be forced to protest en masse, hold hearings, etc. But Obama and congress knew, in those circumstances, in that era, in that middle eastern country, against that unsympathetic target, it would encounter minimal protest. But it's at times like that and under circumstances like those that Rubicons get crossed and dangerous precedents set.

                      Sadly, that political calculation was correct. Despite being forcefully protested by a few members of congress, our system failed to work because the "War on Terror" was started by the opposition party and Obama's own party chose not to hold their President accountable for partisan political reasons. The media similarly followed party lines with the democratic majority choosing not to make an issue of it and the opposition media not wanting to go against the "War on Terror" they still actively endorsed. Only a few media people went against their traditional alignment and called it the unconstitutional execution that it clearly was. The handful of politicians, media and pundits who stood up on this issue despite doing so alone, are worth noting for their integrity. Even though they knew it might be politically costly and wouldn't change anything, they chose to stand on the right side of history in one of those rare moments when all others failed.

            • By Jensson 2025-04-2520:565 reply

              > I remain horrified that people I really thought were normal Americans are willing to burn it all down just so they don't have to hear Spanish spoken in their doctor's office.

              Calling people who are against illegal immigration "racist" just makes it worse.

              A majority of people are fine with legal migration, a supermajority of people think illegal immigrants should get deported. So no, the issue most see isn't that they don't like Spanish, the issue is that they are here illegally.

              • By jfengel 2025-04-2521:261 reply

                Or we could just let more people be here legally. All we'd have to do is raise the quota.

                Do that, and I'd have zero problems rounding up all of the remaining illegal immigrants and driving 'em into the ocean, if that's what you want. Instead, I'm suspicious that "the only issue is that they're here illegally" is just deflection.

                • By 9283409232 2025-04-2521:301 reply

                  I'm pro-legal immigration but this isn't as simple as "make number go up." Resources like houses and jobs are in finite supply and allowing more legal immigration without ensuring the needs of your citizens is a good way to increase anti-immigrant sentiment. The facts don't matter that immigrants do the jobs that Americans don't want.

                  • By jshen 2025-04-2522:43

                    Reducing illegal and legal immigration actually hurts "your citizens" in many ways as it stands today in America. The immigrants pay taxes into things like social security without getting the benefits. They also work on farms and if they go away prices will go up.

                    The only solution to housing is building more housing.

              • By scarface_74 2025-04-2521:252 reply

                As far as the Republican Party, statistics don’t back up the idea they are okay with legal immigration.

                https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/rep...

                In Florida, Desantis is so against legal migration he is trying to relax child labor laws.

                Even now there is a share of Republicans especially in southern states who are still against interracial marriages.

                https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/interracial-marri...

                • By s1artibartfast 2025-04-260:031 reply

                  >Half of Republicans (50%) say legal immigration into the United States should be decreased.

                  This is a far shot from being against legal migration entirely.

                  • By dragonwriter 2025-04-260:141 reply

                    > This is a far shot from being against legal migration entirely.

                    Sure, its simply about preferring strong ethnic controls on immigration: while only 50% of Republicans think legal immigration should be decreased, 61% think that immigration "from other cultures" has mainly negative consequences. It's not that Republicans are against legal immigration entirely, its just that they are (in the majority) against any immigration from the places most immigrants come from; they are fine with legal immigration of white Christian conservatives, especially from the rest of the anglosphere.

                    • By s1artibartfast 2025-04-262:28

                      I think that is closer, but still a strawman. I think the ethnic boundaries are more flexible than you portray. Immigration of diverse cultures are acceptable as long as they are not a cultural threat, and the target isn't zero.

                • By Jensson 2025-04-2521:43

                  > As far as the Republican Party, statistics don’t back up the idea they are okay with legal immigration.

                  I said majority of people, not majority of republicans. That means there are still many republicans that like legal immigration, wealthy people like when labor is allowed to immigrate, Elon Musk is one such person among many others.

                  If Trump said he would deport all the legal immigrants he would likely not have won the election, that they are illegal is core to his support.

              • By sterlind 2025-04-260:07

                > A majority of people are fine with legal migration

                an alarming number of legal aliens are being detained, deported or disappeared: students who wrote op-eds, Afghan asylees who helped us during the war, college professors and Canadian tourists, even (prospectively) "home-growns."

                if most Trump supporters support legal migration, why aren't they pushing back on this?

              • By 9283409232 2025-04-2521:26

                This is a complicated issue because Republicans spent decades sabotaging the immigration system. If you're an immigrant trying to cross the border legally, you could spend years waiting for your hearing. Part of the reason illegal immigration is so high is because they make legal immigration near impossible.

              • By jshen 2025-04-261:30

                Trump is aggressively deporting foreign students that were here legally. If you are only against illegal immigration you should speak out against things like this.

          • By xracy 2025-04-261:31

            > obstructed an arrest by changing standard procedure

            Sorry, then would a janitor who puts up a slippery floor sign in front of a door and asks someone to use a different door be "obstructing arrest by changing standard procedure."

            This is absurd on its face. You don't have the right to arrest a Judge for "obstructing justice" because they let someone use a different door to leave. And you should think 1 million times of the implication to the rule of law before you do such a thing.

            ICE are not gods, and I would hope after this, that Americans would start to consider taking away what power they have, because they are abusing it. And it's threatening our democracy.

        • By switch007 2025-04-2521:33

          > We used to be special.

          Oh. Do expand.

        • By asdsadasdasd123 2025-04-2519:321 reply

          [flagged]

          • By ty6853 2025-04-2519:391 reply

            Garcia could have been deported literally anywhere but el salvador as he had an active deportation order, and withholding only from El Salvador. They could have just dropped him in a barren reef in the middle of the Pacific and said good fucking luck, why they took him the one place he couldn't go evades all logic.

            • By asdsadasdasd123 2025-04-2519:431 reply

              I think you have the wrong case; is Garcia also a domestic abuser?

              • By ty6853 2025-04-2519:45

                His wife claimed in a restraining order filing that he was one writing she was "punched" "scratched" and had her clothes forcibly ripped.

                No idea if he was one as she claimed the exact opposite of what she wrote on her GoFundMe donation page about how they needed money because he is such a great husband/father.

        • By linksnapzz 2025-04-2519:26

          As it turns out, hyperbole is not aside.

      • By lolinder 2025-04-2519:391 reply

        The 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.

        • By godelski 2025-04-2521:062 reply

            > The only question is whether obstructing ICE is classified as the legal offense of obstruction
          
          There's other questions tbh. I don't know the answers, but I think it is critical to point out.

          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...

          • By vimax 2025-04-2522:311 reply

            It's worth adding the director of the FBI posted publicly showing a clear politically motivated bias in an ongoing case. So outside the immediate facts of the case there are questions around presumption of innocence, due process, and a fair trial, as well as prosecutorial misconduct.

            • By godelski 2025-04-2523:36

                > the director of the FBI posted
              
              This one?[0]

                > showing a clear politically motivated bias in an ongoing case
              
              It is unclear what you mean. Are you saying that Judge Dugan has a clear politically motivated bias or that Kash Patel does? Or both?

                [0] https://x.com/FBIDirectorKash/status/1915800907318468626
                    Archive in case gets deleted again[1]:
                      https://archive.is/20250425194646/https://x.com/FBIDirectorKash/status/1915800907318468626
                [1] https://gizmodo.com/fbi-director-deletes-tweet-about-arrest-of-wisconsin-judge-but-its-unclear-why-2000594375

          • By fc417fc802 2025-04-2620:04

            Yet another question is how low the bar for obstruction is. Did she actually obstruct ICE in any real sense?

      • By pyuser583 2025-04-263:25

        My 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.”

    • By nonethewiser 2025-04-263:45

      That 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.

    • By s1artibartfast 2025-04-2519:282 reply

      How 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.

      • By sasmithjr 2025-04-2519:501 reply

        > [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...

        • By lolinder 2025-04-2519:572 reply

          The 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.

          https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obstruction_of_justice

          • By fc417fc802 2025-04-2620:26

            As noted by the linked page those are minimum requirements. The relevant law regarding obstruction [0] is USC 18 §1505 [1]. It isn't immediately obvious to me that it was violated.

            The first paragraph only appears to apply to physical evidence. The second paragraph appears to require more than merely assisting someone.

            > Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication

            The latter two obviously don't apply so that only leaves the former. Did the judge act "corruptly"?

            The other law cited in the complaint is USC 18 §1071 [2] and the question would be if leading someone to an alternate pathway constitutes either harboring or concealing the individual. I don't feel like letting someone out my backdoor constitutes "concealing" a person as the term is commonly used. As an example, hiding someone in a closet and then telling the officers that he isn't in the building would obviously qualify.

            [0] https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/3d022b74...

            [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505

            [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1071

      • By TrackerFF 2025-04-2519:382 reply

        If 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.

        • By lolinder 2025-04-2519:47

          If 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.

        • By Jensson 2025-04-2519:50

          > 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.

    • By insane_dreamer 2025-04-2519:521 reply

      If ICE wasn't legally authorized to search the premises or arrest the man, then the judge wasn't "obstructing" his arrest.

      • By Jensson 2025-04-2519:542 reply

        They 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.

        • By rolph 2025-04-2521:071 reply

          FBI should review thier fieldwork, alternate entrance/exits, must be secured or under watch, before the approach.

          • By Jensson 2025-04-2521:291 reply

            They did catch the guy so they did do their job.

            • By rolph 2025-04-2521:31

              yeah they did thier job, but operationally speaking, they need a review.

        • By insane_dreamer 2025-04-2520:121 reply

          But they didn't have a valid warrant for arrest. Therefore him going out the back door was not "escaping arrest".

          • By Jensson 2025-04-2520:282 reply

            They did have a valid warrant for arrest, they just didn't have a warrant to search the courtroom but they had a warrant to arrest the guy as soon as he stepped outside.

            • By xracy 2025-04-261:351 reply

              Then they weren't obstructed. They're just shit at their job.

              If I know you're in a building and haver permission to arrest you, it's not "obstructing arrest" if you use the back door. What if your car's parked out back?

              To quote the 10 year old who destroyed me in fortnite "Get good."

              • By stackskipton 2025-04-262:301 reply

                I could be if you can't enter a store to arrest someone and back door is marked "private employee only". Manager then let's them out the back door despite clear enforced store policy to prohibit random customers from being allowed in that part of the store.

                • By fc417fc802 2025-04-2620:30

                  I don't think the manager (or any other employee) is legally obligated to follow store policy in your example.

    • By downrightmike 2025-04-2519:221 reply

      Key point is the Feds aren't obeying the law

      • By lenkite 2025-04-266:04

        Which law aren't they obeying ?

    • By nonethewiser 2025-04-263:43

      That 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.

    • By rufus_foreman 2025-04-263:401 reply

      >> An “ICE warrant” is not a real warrant

      False.

      • By os2warpman 2025-04-2615:431 reply

        An 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?

        • By rufus_foreman 2025-04-2622:03

          >> 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.

  • By kemayo 2025-04-2515:4322 reply

    > 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".

    • By mjburgess 2025-04-2515:566 reply

      1. 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.

      • By kemayo 2025-04-2516:066 reply

        I 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.

        • By pjc50 2025-04-2516:155 reply

          > 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.

          • By fnordpiglet 2025-04-2516:465 reply

            The fact the FBI participated in this arrest is chilling. ICE being a proto secret police seems to be perceived already. The FBI now? There’s question whether the ICE agents even had legal grounds to demand arrest regardless, whether they had a warrant, etc - and the facts established are pretty clearly not prosecutable. So this is pure intimidation, going after the judicial in what will likely be a flagrantly abusive way, yet doing it proudly and across the media - this is a shot across the bow telling judges at all levels they are next. And if there’s anyone that knows being arrested changes your life forever, it’s judges.

            I am not alarmist or hyperbolic by nature, and I don’t say this lightly, but this is the next level and the escalation event that leads to the end game. The separation of powers is unraveling, and this is America’s Sulla moment where the republic cracks. The question remains did the anti federalists bake enough stability into the constitution to ensure our first Sulla doesn’t lead to Julius Caesar.

            • By EgregiousCube 2025-04-2516:552 reply

              The accused is accused of violating federal law, so it's normal that a federal agency would make the arrest. FBI seems to make more sense than DEA or ATF, no?

              • By fnordpiglet 2025-04-2517:032 reply

                It’s not that the agency is wrong; it’s that the agency would do it. This is the agency that since J Edgar Hoover has very carefully rebuilt its reputation and is very guarded in it. This act is entirely reminiscent of the political corruption of the FBI of old. That regression, that fast, is frightening.

                ICE being shady is by many people accepted, the DEA, ATF even. But the FBI has built itself a pretty strong reputation of integrity and professionalism, and resistance to political pressure and corruption. In some ways I at least viewed it as a firewall in law enforcement against this sort of stuff.

                Now who watches the watchers?

                • By ty6853 2025-04-2517:221 reply

                  ICE, ATF, and CBP has always been the house for the dregs of federal LEO. It is for the people that fail to get into anything else.

                  FBI is prestigious because they get the most qualified tyrants, who are smart enough to lie and deceive in ways that are airtight enough that those at ICE take the heat. The surprising thing here isn't the fact that they did it, but that they didn't do the normal way of digging or manufacturing something else to pin on the judge.

                  • By lliamander 2025-04-2518:411 reply

                    Anecdotally, I have heard that the most trustworthy (perhaps only trustworthy) Federal law enforcement group is the US Marshalls.

                    • By ty6853 2025-04-2518:44

                      US Marshalls IIRC is also the hardest to get into. If I recall they have like one day a year they accept applications and they all (only certain # accepted) get filled within seconds. (I'm probably embellishing but not by much).

                • By mlinhares 2025-04-2517:531 reply

                  For most of its life the FBI has been a hand of the federal government to quell dissent, this new perspective on the FBI being professional and non-partisan is pretty new.

                  • By fnordpiglet 2025-04-2518:061 reply

                    Yes it is - and it was carefully cultured over decades. A reputation takes years to build and seconds to destroy. Mission accomplished.

                    • By mlinhares 2025-04-2722:08

                      This might be the largest problem with the US government, most of what we used to take for granted isn't really enshrined in law anywhere, it was mostly a gentlemen's agreement that "you just don't do that, it's ungentlemanly" and not really law or anything enforceable.

                      The fact you can just fire the whole federal government (yes, i understand the probation thing) and there's *nothing* that blocks it is just completely bonkers to me. All you really needed was a bad actor that had no respect for the norms, because there's no real consequence to breaking them.

              • By scoofy 2025-04-2517:111 reply

                >The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

                You can't just arrest someone for nothing. You need probable cause. The question is whether a judge going about their day, doing nothing illegal, is probable cause. It's very likely not.

            • By ajross 2025-04-2519:351 reply

              > The fact the FBI participated in this arrest is chilling

              Even more frightening is that there was a federal judge that was willing to sign off on an arrest warrant for a fellow jurist, based on what is clearly political showmanship (they didn't need to arrest her at all to prosecute this crime!).

              There were a lot of Rubicons crossed today. This ends with opposition politicians in jail. Every time. And usually to some level of armed revolt around/preventing transfers of power.

              • By dredmorbius 2025-04-271:34

                With AII.S2.C1.3.1 power jails are porous.

                There's one effective sentence, if gained, which avoids this. I'm ordinarily #NotAFan, and that's another Rubicon once crossed presents massive peril, but in cases of flagrant constitutional violation I'm increasingly open to arguments in favour.

                If that sentence cannot be attained, options are even more parlous.

            • By epistasis 2025-04-2517:06

              This is certainly not the first autocratic act of the FBI under Patel. They have been thoroughly compromised and lost integrity even before this arrest.

            • By exe34 2025-04-2517:21

              > ICE being a proto secret police

              people think the Musk administration is dumb and incompetent, but this is incredibly clever. ICE is the prefect cover for a new unaccountable secret police.

              anybody can be disappeared under the excuse of illegal immigration. if there's no due process, they can come for you and you have no recourse.

              plenty of MAGAs are so ready to shout "but they're criminals" - and they still don't understand that it could be them next.

            • By gitfan86 2025-04-2517:017 reply

              [flagged]

              • By boroboro4 2025-04-2517:141 reply

                You would be surprised but our constitution is not "We vote for a king every 4 years and do whatever king desires" in fact.

                • By gitfan86 2025-04-2517:231 reply

                  [flagged]

                  • By pests 2025-04-2517:342 reply

                    "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

                    How is this being followed? Specifically,

                    "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

                    This is what people are upset with, not your (loaded language) "violent immigrants"

                    • By fnordpiglet 2025-04-2518:05

                      This is the key is that the president presides over the execution of the law created by the legislature under the framework of the constitution as judged by the judicial. The president being elected by a vast majority l to do X isn’t license to achieve X under any method - let alone by a minority of the electorate. The presiding over the execution under the law is by constitutional construction an administrative role, and the political promises made to be elected are not justification to break the constitutional order of the republic. The promises made must be executed legally and constitutionally, and when the law and the constitution prohibits that execution, the president must break their promise to the electorate. That’s the order of things and it’s entirely intentional. I expect this from any elected president regardless of party, promises made, or any other details of the situation. Anyone who doesn’t see this is either a) not particularly committed to the American system of government, b) not particularly literate of the system, or more often than not likely both.

                      So, yeah, “Trump promised to do X so he’s doing it by any means necessary” doesn’t hold water. And it’s specifically shocking coming from people who have been howling about the “other sides” overreach. I just can’t understand if it’s just hypocrisy, if it’s naked ambition to overthrow the democracy and replace it with a single party system, blindness to the overreach - but it’s probably the most disturbing part of all of this. If the “others” did these things and that was a problem, why is it ok for your guy to do it too ?

                    • By gitfan86 2025-04-2517:522 reply

                      The way I read it is that US citizens have a right to not be murdered or assaulted by people who enter the country illegally.

                      So it seems like a Judge would have an obligation to prevent someone accused of being in the country illegally and accused of a violent crime to not leave the courthouse and instead turn that person over to the federal authorities who are outside the court waiting for the proceedings to finish.

                      • By fnordpiglet 2025-04-2518:361 reply

                        Being accused of a violent crime is not the same as being guilty of a crime. She has obligation to conduct her court in an orderly fashion that ensures due process and compliance. Police marching into proceedings of the court administering due process and trying to arrest people in front of the court without even providing a warrant violates all sorts of laws - including the fact the judge has say over the events in their court and the disposition of the accused during the session. This is crucial because if people who are at risk from arrest by federal authorities are routinely arrested when they appear before the court, people will stop appearing before the court. This means the administration of justice breaks down fundamentally and victims have no real opportunity to press their cases. If someone is a murderer or committed assault we should absolutely NOT deport them. We should send them to prison and punish them; then deport them. However this structure of ICE using the courts to make their burden of finding people easier breaks that system for the expediency of ICE, but our system isn’t built for the expediency of the police but for the expediency of justice.

                        • By gitfan86 2025-04-2518:551 reply

                          [flagged]

                          • By fzeroracer 2025-04-2519:271 reply

                            I assume you can understand that the 'illegal' part is found as a result of the 'due process' part.

                            Otherwise, do you have any proof that you're not an illegal criminal? Is there any reason why I should not turn you in for crimes against the state and have you deported?

                      • By dttze 2025-04-2518:151 reply

                        [flagged]

              • By Hikikomori 2025-04-2517:09

                Did he also say he would deport people without a criminal record, that are here legally, and without due process?

              • By epistasis 2025-04-2517:07

                The executive must also uphold the constitution, no matter what vague campaign promises were made.

              • By quickslowdown 2025-04-2517:37

                [flagged]

              • By dttze 2025-04-2517:23

                [flagged]

              • By bananalychee 2025-04-2517:333 reply

                [flagged]

                • By magicalist 2025-04-2518:041 reply

                  > On one hand I find the current administration's approach to deportations too heavy-handed, but on the other hand it seems almost necessary because of the level of obstruction at the judicial level compared to the Obama era

                  This is just "ends justifies the means" via hand waving. If you claim to have principles at least stand by them.

                  • By bananalychee 2025-04-2518:132 reply

                    Not really. I want law and order to be upheld for the benefit of the broader society. If this can't happen due to systematic obstruction, then it's not a violation of my principles to be less critical of toeing a line I'd otherwise not like to see breached. If we all had hard lines drawn in the sand that never moved around, this wouldn't even be a conversation, because 15 years ago mass deportations were uncontroversial.

                    • By lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2025-04-2520:082 reply

                      > systematic obstruction

                      It would help to discuss this using the same terms. This is not different from the "due process" that others talk about. I would presume you don't think that due process is needlessly obstructive but you also seem to think this obstruction is needless. If I'm wrong, what am I wrong about? If I'm not wrong, why do you think this obstruction is needless?

                      • By gitfan86 2025-04-260:18

                        The idea is that the justice system should work in a reasonable way so that victims and potential victim rights are protected.

                        For example, someone who allegedly beat their wife, has a right to a trial. But if activist judges make decisions that cause the trial to not take place for 10 years that is obstructive and the alleged victim doesn't get justice or protection from future assaults. So if that person is deported before the trial you could complain about lack of "due process" but you would be ignoring the rights of the victim.

                      • By bananalychee 2025-04-260:251 reply

                        In my understanding, the Obama administration expelled 2.5 million illegal immigrants under the same emergency powers now being invoked by the Trump administration and did bypass standards of "due process" being raised today to block deportations. If it's practically impossible to expel the illegal immigrants allowed in via open border policies over the previous term, that's dysfunctional and the standards should be relaxed.

                        This case is particularly egregious, as the judge personally helped a violent illegal immigrant evade law enforcement outside of her jurisdiction, which explains the arrest; but "systematic obstruction" refers to the injunctions being issued constantly to block executive actions, suggesting that the Trump administration's attempts to reverse open border policies are subjected to a much higher standard than Democrats were under Obama just 15 years prior when they correctly viewed illegal immigration as a problem.

                        • By dragonwriter 2025-04-260:301 reply

                          > In my understanding the Obama administration expelled 2.5 million illegal immigrants under the same emergency powers now being invoked by the Trump administration

                          The last time the Alien Enemies Act was invoked was about two decades before Barack Obama was born.

                          > If it's practically impossible to reverse open border policies that let in a flood of illegal immigrants for almost 4 years

                          The US hasn't had anything like open borders policies for more than a century (more precisely, since the original national origin quota system was adopted in 1921.)

                          It's probably easier to discuss policy in this area if the premises are something resembling facts rather than partisan propaganda fictions.

                    • By CamperBob2 2025-04-2520:07

                      I want law and order to be upheld for the benefit of the broader society.

                      Did you vote for Trump in 2024?

                • By foobarchu 2025-04-2519:05

                  > too heavy handed

                  This is way too tame a way to brand ignoring both due process and multiple court orders not to depoty people, including the supreme court.

                • By epistasis 2025-04-2520:34

                  To see this as a "pretty clear case of obstruction" is the contortion.

              • By fzeroracer 2025-04-2517:33

                You're wrong.

          • By whats_a_quasar 2025-04-2516:303 reply

            "You can beat the rap but not the ride" is phrased like the judge actually did anything wrong. That seems very doubtful. This administration has shown they are not entitled to the presumption that they are acting in good faith.

            • By QuercusMax 2025-04-2516:331 reply

              I don't think it implies the judge did anything wrong. If you're arrested, you're going to experience whatever the cops want to do to you, regardless of whether they can convict you of it.

              "You can beat the rap but not the ride" is an indictment of the cops, not the arrestee.

              • By prepend 2025-04-2516:461 reply

                I don’t know. It seems pretty unusual.

                Imagine that someone is being charged with shoplifting and literally at trial. Some other law enforcement agency shows up to the trial and wants to arrest them for jaywalking.

                It seems dysfunctional that the court would release them when they know a different law enforcement agency is literally in the building and wanting to arrest them.

                Is this how it works when the FBI comes to a county court looking for someone the county cops have in custody?

                • By epistasis 2025-04-2516:512 reply

                  Talk to the cops, not the judge who is in a proceeding? Go talk to the chief justice?

                  The idea that the judge did anything wrong here, based on the description given by the FBI themselves, is absolutely beyond the pale. There's zero reason for ICE agents to barge into court and demand to take somebody.

                  They didn't even leave one of the multiple agents in the courtroom to wait for the proceedings to end. To blame the judge at all in this requires making multiple logical and factual jumps that even the FBI did not put forward.

                  Edit: the Trump administration has also been attacking the Catholic Charities of Milwaukee, which this judge used to run:

                  > Before she was a judge, Dugan worked as a poverty attorney and executive director of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee.

                  It seems pretty clear that this is a highly politically motivated arrest that has zero justification.

                  • By bbarnett 2025-04-2517:261 reply

                    This reminds me of those cops arresting that nurse, over their attempts to illegally have blood drawn from an unconscious person.

                    • By rolph 2025-04-2518:10

                      LEO should have no say whatsoever regarding any medical proceedure.

                      any one who keeps a hippocratic oath should not be performing procedures because they were "commanded" to, under pain of professional discreditation.

                  • By prepend 2025-04-2517:463 reply

                    Oh, I’m certainly not endorsing the arrest of the judge.

                    But wouldn’t the bailiff hold the person?

                    Is it typical for the FBI to lose a suspect in this manner? If so, this seems dysfunctional as if someone is in the court system then jurisdictions need to coordinate to just operate efficiently. It needs fixing so if ICE wants someone and a local courthouse has them in custody that ICE can pick them up.

                    But arresting judging is not going to help fix this bureaucratic silliness.

                    • By epistasis 2025-04-2517:581 reply

                      On what grounds would the bailiff hold the person?

                      I'm not sure why the courthouse should hold someone for ICE, it wasn't even necessary here they still got the person. All they had to do was stay where they were.

                      • By prepend 2025-04-2518:122 reply

                        That theres a federal warrant for his detention.

                        I don't think this would be to hold them indefinitely. Just that they would have the suspect sit there and wait for the agents to return.

                        • By epistasis 2025-04-2518:34

                          What federal warrant was there? I don't see any mention of one but the best that ICE could issue is not a judicial warrant and does not meet most of the requirements under the 4th amendment for detainment of a person.

                        • By nradov 2025-04-2518:49

                          Generally state and local law enforcement and courts have no legal requirement to enforce most federal arrest warrants. This is due to our dual sovereignty system. Of course they also can't actively interfere with federal law enforcement or lie to federal officers, but it doesn't seem like that's what happened in this incident.

                    • By ClumsyPilot 2025-04-2518:27

                      No one is obligated to do ICE’s dirty work for them. Even most totalitarian countries don’t go that far.

                    • By HeyLaughingBoy 2025-04-2520:111 reply

                      > local courthouse has them in custody

                      I think this is the disconnect you're seeing. He was not in custody: he was appearing before a judge.

                      • By prepend 2025-04-2523:03

                        Oh, thanks. I assumed he was appearing before the judge as a defendant and was in custody.

            • By nostrademons 2025-04-2519:23

              Looking at the rest of the GP's comment:

              > 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.

              I don't think they intended to imply that the judge did anything wrong. Rather, they're saying that if you live in a world where the FBI or ICE or other official agencies can rough you up regardless of whether you're guilty or innocent in the eyes of the law, disputes are going to get settled with violence. After all, if the police are just going to make life difficult for you when you're arrested (the "ride") regardless of whether you're guilty in the eyes of the law (the "rap"), what's the logical response when you see a policeman coming to you? You shoot them. Don't let them arrest you because you're gonna have a bad time anyway.

              Various marginalized communities (in both other countries and parts of the U.S.) already function that way - violence is an endemic part of how problems are solved. And going back to the threadstarter, that's why police departments have instituted sanctuary city policies. They don't want to get shot, and so they try to create an incentive structure where generally law-abiding (except for their immigration status) residents are unafraid to go to the police and help them catch actual criminals, rather than treating all police as the enemy.

            • By hackinthebochs 2025-04-2516:441 reply

              "You can't beat the ride" is saying that cops can punish you regardless of whether what you did was illegal.

              • By pc86 2025-04-2517:041 reply

                That's certainly one interpretation of it, and a pretty reasonable one. However, I typically interpret it as "if the police think you've committed a crime, you are going to jail and almost nothing is going to stop that." In that incredibly famous "Don't Talk to the Police" talk[0], the attorney asks the former-cop-turned-law-student if he's every been convinced not to arrest someone based on what the suspect said. Not a single time in his entire law enforcement career.

                This is also sort of the crux of the talk - if nothing you can say will convince the police not to arrest you, and things you do say can make things worse, your best bet is to just shut up and talk to an attorney if it gets to that point.

                [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

                • By QuercusMax 2025-04-2517:19

                  I think we're all agreeing here. "You can't beat the ride" means that if the cops want to arrest you, lock you up, etc., you can't do anything about it. Doesn't matter if you're guilty, innocent, or just a random bystander, you're not going to stop them from taking you and doing whatever they want in the process.

          • By rob74 2025-04-2517:00

            Plus they obviously want to set an example: if you get in our way, bad things will happen to you.

          • By roughly 2025-04-2516:381 reply

            ICE should’ve been reformed after Trump 1, but at this point we’re going to need to unwind the whole organization when we get that man out of power. They’ve shown themselves to be pretty disinterested in laws, democracy, etc.

            • By JuniperMesos 2025-04-2520:00

              This is the reform of ICE. Trump was elected explicitly promising to do much more arrests and deportations of illegal immigrants, which is instantiated by having agents of the federal government do things like arrest and deport illegal immigrants on trial for unrelated crimes and actually charge citizens like this judge who interfere with this process with crimes, in order to induce them to not interfere with the arrest and deportation of illegal immigrants.

          • By pc86 2025-04-2516:551 reply

            Can you explain how this action reasonably leads to gunfire?

            • By kelseyfrog 2025-04-2517:041 reply

              GP wasn't saying that one leads to another in a causal sense - simply that there are levels of dysfunction and this step is closer to the dysfunction of gunfire than the previous level.

              • By MattGrommes 2025-04-2518:041 reply

                Exactly. One of these days somebody is going to use a gun to defend someone from these masked/unmarked/unwarranted kidnappings.

                • By Teever 2025-04-2521:412 reply

                  The first time someone uses an impossible to trace drone to take out a law enforcement officer in the US is going to change everything.

                  The status quo has been that law enforcement can operate in an openly corrupt way with impunity because they can absolutely positively find someone who fights back.

                  But all the pieces are there for people to fight back with equal impunity. The technology is mature and deployed and has been tested in Ukraine and Syria for several years now.

                  It's just a matter of time before someone takes out a corrupt cop or ICE official and they get away away with it.

                  It will have a chilling effect on this kind of behaviour.

                  • By pjc50 2025-04-2711:13

                    > It will have a chilling effect on this kind of behaviour

                    No, it will have an escalation effect. That's the problem. Starting with a massive crackdown on law abiding drone users.

                  • By kelseyfrog 2025-04-2521:531 reply

                    Oi, bruv. Those are inside thoughts.

                    • By Teever 2025-04-2522:071 reply

                      After Hinckley and especially after 9/11 I didn't think it would be possible for someone to successfully assassinate a US president with a firearm. I was shocked at how trivial it was for two people to almost pull that off last year with Trump. It was pure luck that it didn't happen, and I'm skeptical that the Secret Service has fundamentally changed how they protect people in a way that will permanently prevent even something as mundane as assassination by firearm let alone drones.

                      If they can't stop someone from killing the president with a gun how could they possible stop someone from using a swarm of these to do the same?[0]

                      And how can law enforcement protect themselves from something like this? Like honestly, what is a counter to this kind of attack that scales up to provide protection for the hundreds of thousands of law enforcement officers in America?

                      The only thing I can see scale to that level is reform of behaviour. If people respond to abuse of authority with these kinds of tools then the only viable method of prevention is to stop abusing authority.

                      [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEwD7wppkJw

                      • By ben_w 2025-04-2623:011 reply

                        > The only thing I can see scale to that level is reform of behaviour. If people respond to abuse of authority with these kinds of tools then the only viable method of prevention is to stop abusing authority.

                        I think that presumes that only "good" people will use drones (etc) that way.

                        You've got a bunch of people who you see as* "openly corrupt … with impunity", and a new tech that lets people attack with impunity. The result is that the same cops you're paying attention to* just change from wearing a badge to controlling a joystick.

                        * I'm phrasing it like this because while I know what 1312 means, I don't buy the "all" part.

                        • By Teever 2025-04-276:03

                          It's not so much that I see subjectively see them as openly corrupt and operating with impunity, it's that there are objectively corrupt officials operating openly with impunity[0]. Every institution has corruption -- it's just a matter of degree.

                          I'm not suggesting that only 'good' people will use drones that way, far from it. What I'm suggesting is that a moderating force that hasn't existed for a long while due to asymmetry in police ability vs. the ability to resist them will return. The return of this moderating force will eliminate those few 'bad apples' eliminating their ability to abuse their authority, create fear in other law enforcement officers who would do those kinds of things or at least tolerate them, and would see some sort of law enforcement effort to crack down on corruption.

                          I'm sure you're right that corrupt police will find new and exciting ways to terrorize innocent people with technology as corrupt police will always continue to be corrupt but there will just be less of them because they'll be struck down by vigilantes and there will be more official efforts made to clamp down on them out of necessity.

                          You can probably model this like population dynamics with predator and prey populations in the wild.

                          [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LASD_deputy_gangs

        • By pseudo0 2025-04-2518:021 reply

          That 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.

          • By ClumsyPilot 2025-04-2518:401 reply

            You are basically saying that everybody has to help ICE for free and on occasion do the job of ICE for free. That’s very totalitarian.

            At the same time, it is settled law that a police officer cannot be held liable for not protecting citizens or not arresting someone. So you have more obligations than a police officer yet getting none of the pay or legal protections

            Imagine you were a private tutor, in a private school on private land. ICE barges into the class trying to arrest one of the kids, but their paperwork is not in order so they promised to come back in 20 minutes

            Do you imagine it will be possible to continue with the lesson as normal after such an event?

            It is your discretion, when to start or stop a lesson, you work for yourself.

            Do you imagine you should be obligated as a teacher to continue the lesson as if nothing has happened?

            And if children want to leave to hold them by force?

            why is it your problem That ICE isn’t competent and can’t get their shit right the first time?

            • By pseudo0 2025-04-2518:541 reply

              ICE had a warrant. They were being courteous to the court by waiting until after the hearing instead of scooping the guy up on his way in.

              And no, you don't have to help ICE, you just can't obstruct them. Sneaking a suspect out a back door while you stall the police is textbook, classic obstruction.

              • By frognumber 2025-04-2520:42

                You're downvoted because ICE did not have a warrant.

                ICE prints pieces of paper which they call "administrative warrants." Those were never reviewed by a judge and are internal ICE documents. An administrative warrant is not an actual warrant in any meaningful sense. It's a meaningful document (contrary to what you might read; it's not something one can just print on a laser printer and called it a day), but the "administrative" changes the meaning dramatically.

                It seems like there were plenty of errors all around, in this situation, both on the judge's side and on ICE's side. However, I can't imagine any of those rose to the level of criminal behavior.

                Sneaking a suspect out a back door while you stall the police is textbook, classic obstruction, but that changes quite a bit when it's a government employee operating within their scope of duty. Even if they make a mistake.

                Schools don't want students scared to be there. Courtrooms want to count on cases not being settled by default because people are scared to show up. There is a valid, lawful reason for not permitting ICE to disrupt their government functions. That's doubly true when you can't count on ICE following the law and might ship someone off to El Salvador.

                Asking an LLM, whether or not the judge broke laws is ambiguous. It is unambiguous that they showed poor judgment, and there should probably be consequences. However, what's not ambiguous is that the consequences should be through judicial oversight mechanisms, and not the FBI arresting the judge.

                As a footnote, a judge not being able to rely on ICE following lawful orders significantly strengthens the government interest argument.

        • By californical 2025-04-2516:12

          > 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.

        • By adolph 2025-04-2517:28

          > 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.

            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. 
          
          https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wied.11...

        • By alabastervlog 2025-04-2516:212 reply

          Successful 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.

          • By potato3732842 2025-04-2516:43

            That's the reality less equal animals have had to live under since basically forever.

            I have a hard time seeing it as a bad thing that state and local authorities would have to view the feds the way we have to view all three because it brings our incentives more in alignment.

          • By dylan604 2025-04-2516:31

            I'm sure there will be plenty of attorneys willing to take on these cases pro bono.

        • By willis936 2025-04-2516:086 reply

          [flagged]

          • By bix6 2025-04-2516:132 reply

            Considering the ongoing due process deprivations this is the most concerning aspect to me. This is a sitting judge which is a significant escalation against the judiciary.

            • By ivape 2025-04-2516:421 reply

              I was talking to someone earlier about how we in America, today, are not entitled to anything. Just in the last hundred years, people lived under secret police, dictators, state-controlled media, occupation, you name it. Hundreds of millions of people lived their whole life under the KGB or Stasi. Hundreds of millions live in autocracy even today. Some straight up live in a warzone as we speak. The idea that "we" can't be going through this is beyond entitled. Nothing is guaranteed to us. We are being shown how fragile this all is by the universe.

              • By bix6 2025-04-2516:47

                The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

                I expect America to be a beacon of light and I will fight for it. We all need to fight for it, especially the people who frequent this message board because we are among the most privileged and capable. It’s disappointing to me how many of our tech leaders forget what made them great in the first place and abuse us all in the pursuit of personal wealth.

          • By BizarroLand 2025-04-2516:131 reply

            For people who don't live in crazy town, this would be considered an oppressive action, arresting a judge for following procedure simply because it inconvenienced you.

            • By ConspiracyFact 2025-04-2520:18

              The judge wasn’t arrested for following procedure. Read the complaint.

          • By intermerda 2025-04-2516:141 reply

            [flagged]

            • By pjc50 2025-04-2516:162 reply

              Ah, but: freedom for "me". The libertarian HN posters are in favor of unlimited freedom for themselves and a police state for everyone else, especially non-Americans who dare to exist in America.

              • By bodiekane 2025-04-2516:352 reply

                Libertarian is completely the opposite side of the political spectrum from police state/authoritarianism.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart

                • By mindslight 2025-04-2516:57

                  And yet many people calling themselves "Libertarian" signed themselves up for full-throated support of this fascist wannabe dictator. Their supposed interest in "freedom" doesn't extend past their own interest in oppressing others. The dynamic is especially pronounced in the surveillance industry, where digital authoritarianism gets a pass by appealing to the individual fantasy of creating your very own digital authoritarian startup.

                  signed, an actual libertarian.

                • By ceejayoz 2025-04-2516:42

                  As is Communism. In both cases, mostly in theory.

              • By dingdongbong 2025-04-2516:28

                [dead]

          • By kemayo 2025-04-2516:195 reply

            I'm not saying it's good, for sure. But I don't think it's a sign that the push for autocratic authoritarianism is winning, either.

            My optimistic take is that this is the sort of stupid overreach that works to turn other arms of government against the executive. The judiciary tends to be prickly about its prerogatives, and Trump's far from the point where he can just push stuff through without some cover.

            • By WhitneyLand 2025-04-2516:36

              Dear god wake up before it’s too late.

            • By pesus 2025-04-2516:431 reply

              We are far past the point of any optimistic take like that being realistic.

              • By vuggamie 2025-04-2516:50

                The fact that HN is letting political posts stay on the front page after months of suppression shows that we are past the point of denying the authoritarian road we are on.

            • By alabastervlog 2025-04-2516:52

              We've been heading this direction with hardly a pause, let alone step back, since the '70s.

              Authoritarianism was winning for 50+ years. Nobody with power meaningfully tried to stop it, and voters didn't give enough of a shit to elect people who would. Where we're at now, is that it won.

            • By hypeatei 2025-04-2516:301 reply

              > My optimistic take is that this is the sort of stupid overreach that works to turn other arms of government against the executive

              This is your take given the blatant corruption and clear constitutional violations of this administration? Sure, let's hope that norms and vibes save us against an executive ignoring due process. Those other branches don't even have a way to enforce anything; the executive are the ones who arrest people.

              • By kemayo 2025-04-2516:401 reply

                The power of the executive is constrained, ultimately, by what people let them do. Including people inside the executive branch -- the people who're doing the arresting, transporting the prisoners, gunning down the protesters, etc. There's a lot of people involved who aren't committed to some authoritarian project, they're just... doing their job. They can be swayed by vibes, and general unpopularity of the regime.

                The alternative to this view is either giving up or preparing for armed struggle. It's certainly possible that we could get there, but I don't think it's guaranteed yet.

                (I acknowledge that this position is quite the blend of optimism and cynicism.)

                • By Hikikomori 2025-04-2517:19

                  Like this judge they're being ousted for the smallest pushback and are being replaced by project 2025 people, they even set up a system that you can apply to do exactly this. Trump (or Vance that is fully in with Thiel) will have full control over all agencies where all low level employees are on board with this Christo fascist takeover and the judiciary will be powerless.

            • By 542354234235 2025-04-2517:07

              Trump is calling for the Fed's Jerome Powell to be fired for not lying and saying everything will be fine as a result of tariffs. He pulled the security clearance of former CISA Director Chris Krebs, and anyone associated with him, for not lying about the result of his cyber security investigation of the 2020 election. He also pulled security clearances for political rivals including Biden, Harris, and Cheney as well as the Attorneys General involved in his civil case for fraud, which he lost and was ordered to pay $355 million.

              This is blatant and unambiguous. "If you cross me, I will use executive power to destroy you". There is no optimistic view of this.

          • By Spivak 2025-04-2516:183 reply

            If it turns autocratic then there's no discussion to be had. Judge will waterboarded in Gitmo and Trump is de-facto king. We are no longer a nation of laws, the USA is renamed to Trumpopolis and we all have to get government mandated orange spray tans.

            So assuming that doesn't happen, this is an action by a non-autocratic executive meant to have a chilling effect on low level judges who don't want to spend a few days in lockup just because. A knob that the executive is (mostly) allowed to turn but that is considered in poor taste if you wish to remain on good terms with the judiciary. The bar for arrest is really low and the courts decide if she committed a crime which she obviously didn't.

            • By sdenton4 2025-04-2516:43

              Autocracy comes in shades. Arresting judges who do things you don't like is yet another shade darker than we've seen so far... And things were already pretty dark.

            • By trealira 2025-04-2516:251 reply

              You seem to be quite blasé about the possibility of autocracy. But yes, there is a risk that Trump becomes a dictator and we're no longer a nation of laws. It depends on how people like us react to consolidations of power like this, or the illegal impoundment, or cases like Kilmar Abrego Garcia's. The law only matters insofar as we and our representatives can enforce it.

              • By Spivak 2025-04-2516:292 reply

                I'm not so much blasé about it, more just nihilistic because I am the last person with any kind of power to stop it. I imagine most of HN falls into this bucket of people with no real political power or influence. My realistic option if it happens is to move.

                • By adriand 2025-04-2516:49

                  Protest! People power is the best way to resist autocracy especially in the early stages when resistance has a chance of success. Don’t ignore the fact that protests are happening. Musk is fleeing Washington because the backlash successfully tanked Tesla. That’s a big win right there!

                  Consider just how much more inconvenient/shitty/tragic it will be for you and the people you know if you are indeed forced to move, as compared to successfully pushing back right now.

                • By trealira 2025-04-2516:37

                  I'm also making plans contingency plans to move, but I may not be able to. Individually, no, we don't have power, but if everyone actually protested, we would - the Ukrainian revolution[1] started out as just mass protests (Euromaidan), for instance. The problem is that not enough of us are doing it, maybe because too many people are apathetic, uninformed, or don't take the possibility of autocracy seriously.

                  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity

            • By ivape 2025-04-2516:461 reply

              [flagged]

      • By ldoughty 2025-04-2516:483 reply

        According 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)

        • By mjburgess 2025-04-2516:552 reply

          If 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.

          • By ldoughty 2025-04-2518:011 reply

            The violation is not that the judge _did not assist_, but that the judge took additional actions to ensure the defendant could access restricted areas they otherwise would have no right to be in so that they could get out of the building unseen.

            The judge was aware of the warrant and ensured the defendant remained in private areas so they could get out of the building.

            The FBI's argument is that her actions were unusual (a defendant being allowed into juror's corridors is highly unusual) and were only being taken explicitly to assist in evading ICE.

            As we've heard from many lawyers recently regarding ICE... You are not required to participate and assist. However, you can't take additional actions to directly interfere. Even loudly shouting "WHY IS ICE HERE?" is dangerous (you probably should shout a more generic police concern, like 'hey, police, is there a criminal nearby? should i hide?'

            • By nxobject 2025-04-2519:07

              Given that, it'll be interested to see how guidance on courthouse security on whether to let ICE in with administrative warrants is updated.

          • By trothamel 2025-04-2517:151 reply

            https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1071

            That's a general applicable law that prevents anyone - judge or not - from interfering with an apprehension.

            • By mjburgess 2025-04-2517:212 reply

              That applies to warrants for arrest. The standard warrant ICE operate with is a civil warrant, and does not confer any actual authority to arrest an individual.

              • By slowmovintarget 2025-04-2519:17

                That's irrelevant.

                Interfering with an ICE apprehension is illegal. That's what this judge did, which is why the FBI arrested her.

              • By ty6853 2025-04-2517:293 reply

                I keep hearing over and over the ICE warrants aren't real.

                If they are arresting people using them and judges are recognizing them, they are real and the people demanding an arrest warrant are the sovereign citizen-tier people screaming at the sky wishing there was a different reality.

                • By compiler-guy 2025-04-2517:42

                  There are multiple types of warrants. All types are "real", but they convey different authority and different requirements upon both the arrestee and the arresters.

                  It is both rational and legal to insist that law enforcement stay within the bounds of the authority the specific type warrant they obtained. ICE civil warrants grant different authority than every-day federal arrest warrants. That ICE is abusing that authority is no reason to capitulate to it.

                • By mjburgess 2025-04-2517:42

                  There are two different warrants. Ones issued by judges, which are "real" and ones signed by ICE supervisors which are little more than legal authorisation that this agent can go out and investigate a person -- even if they nevertheless attempt to arrest them.

                • By habinero 2025-04-2521:531 reply

                  ICE administrative warrants are essentially "I can do what I want" written in crayon.

                  Their only real purpose is fooling the gullible into confusing them for real warrants.

        • By ivape 2025-04-2517:00

          I'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.

        • By lostdog 2025-04-2518:07

          The feds have been lying in their court filings for the past few months, so don't take their complaint at face value.

      • By mullingitover 2025-04-2517:282 reply

        I'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.

        • By tbrownaw 2025-04-2520:371 reply

          > 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.

          • By fc417fc802 2025-04-2620:41

            The day old ones are $6/dozen here. The fresh ones are $1 each.

        • By SpicyLemonZest 2025-04-2521:251 reply

          You'll be happy to know, then, that the judge was released on her own recognizance.

          • By mullingitover 2025-04-261:05

            I don't think you understood my point: there's no undoing the arrest, which was the only real goal here. The administration is publicly demonstrating that it can perform wrongful arrests of judges with impunity. They don't care if they get released later.

      • By Gabriel54 2025-04-2517:481 reply

        Did 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.

        • By ImPostingOnHN 2025-04-2521:221 reply

          "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

          • By dataflow 2025-04-2522:441 reply

            > it's a pretty important detail

            It doesn't seem like it matters here. Per 18 USC §1071:

            Whoever harbors or conceals any person for whose arrest a warrant or process has been issued under the provisions of any law of the United States, so as to prevent his discovery and arrest, after notice or knowledge of the fact that a warrant or process has been issued for the apprehension of such person, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned.

            Unless you're arguing that the facts are misrepresented, or that the law is somehow unconstitutional, this seems pretty slam-dunk, no? The judge seems to have deliberately escorted the defendant to the jury room for the purpose of letting them hide/escape arrest. That's all there seems to be to it.

            https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/04/25/us/judgedugan...

            • By ImPostingOnHN 2025-04-261:241 reply

              Not sure that applies to arbitrary documents that the bearer claims is a warrant, rather than a judge-signed warrant.

              Either way, it wasn't illegal to send them to where they needed to go, and it wasn't illegal to let this dude use another door, so the illegality seems to depend on whether the executive can concoct their own warrants without any oversight and gain arbitrary access for arbitrary reasons.

              > The judge seems to have deliberately escorted the defendant to the jury room for the purpose of letting them hide/escape arrest.

              Was the judge, beforehand, served with a judge-signed warrant indicating that they intended to, and were authorized to, arrest this person? If not, then it wasn't letting them escape arrest, it was letting them escape from 2 random dudes who may or may not even be law enforcement, much less law enforcement judicially authorized to arrest the dude.

              • By dataflow 2025-04-262:491 reply

                It doesn't say it had to be a judicial warrant, it says warrant or process. And "I don't even know if you're actually law enforcement" is not an excuse for ignoring law enforcement; what you do is ask for credentials and verify them. Anyway, I'm not a lawyer, but this seems pretty cut and dried to me. We'll see how it plays out in court.

                • By ImPostingOnHN 2025-04-264:441 reply

                  > It doesn't say it had to be a judicial warrant, it says warrant or process.

                  Lol: by that logic, Steve who lives in a van down by the river can scribble himself a napkin that says "warrant" on it. After all, "It doesn't say it had to be a judicial warrant, it says warrant or process", and Steve who lives in a van down by the river has a process and a warrant.

                  > I don't even know if you're actually law enforcement" is not an excuse for ignoring law enforcement

                  Maybe, maybe not. "You never presented me with a valid warrant" is, though, and a judge would know better than cops what a valid warrant is.

                  • By dataflow 2025-04-264:561 reply

                    > Lol: by that logic, Steve who lives in a van down by the river can scribble himself a napkin that says "warrant" on it. After all, "It doesn't say it had to be a judicial warrant, it says warrant or process", and Steve who lives in a van down by the river has a process and a warrant.

                    What? Did you not read it says a process that "has been issued under the provisions of any law of the United States"?

                    • By ImPostingOnHN 2025-04-265:14

                      The laws of the United States say that Steve can scribble "warrant" on a napkin. Has this judge ruled that this ICE "administrative warrant" is any more valid than Steve's for the purposes of this case? Obviously judges, not the executive branch, are the deciders here.

                      The constitution (which is supreme to laws), along with common law, put restrictions on which pieces of paper that say "warrant" actually get to function as warrants, and judges, like this one, have the last word on interpreting the constitution and laws.

      • By wonderwonder 2025-04-2518:47

        "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

      • By lolinder 2025-04-2517:28

        What'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.

    • By silisili 2025-04-2517:01

      This 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.

    • By JumpCrisscross 2025-04-2516:276 reply

      Under 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.)

      • By dylan604 2025-04-2516:363 reply

        why 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

        • By JumpCrisscross 2025-04-2516:392 reply

          > 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.

          • By exe34 2025-04-2517:552 reply

            you'd be declared an illegal immigrant and removed to hotel salvador pretty quickly at this point. The orangefuhrer has already said he's coming after the "homegrown" next.

            • By goatlover 2025-04-2518:373 reply

              At what point will Democratic state governors and legislatures have enough of autocratic takeover? States have their own National Guard.

              • By dylan604 2025-04-2519:11

                While I'm not familiar with all 50 governors, I'm wondering if there might not be some Republican governors that think things have gone too far as well. Being a Republican does not mean you are in favor of autocracy. It just looks like that right now because nobody is sticking their necks out, but I'm holding onto hope that if it does get to that point, further resistance might come out.

              • By selimthegrim 2025-04-2519:47

                You might want a State Guard, which might be a little harder to federalize than the National Guard

              • By johnnyanmac 2025-04-2522:261 reply

                we'll see if/when the lawsuits lauched against the administration is ignored by the administration. But no one wants a civil war. No one would win here except maybe China/Russia.

                • By dylan604 2025-04-2523:29

                  You discount the people that want to watch the world burn. The tree of...fed with blood...blah blah blah. "Burn it down, start over" is often touted as the fastest/best approach for wholesale changes when the friction to making change is too great.

                  Economically, China would probably be the biggest beneficiary to a US civil war, especially one that ended with 2 Americas with neither the strength of the former union. Russia would just love to see the chaos and reap whatever gains they could get as well.

          • By totalkikedeath 2025-04-2516:42

            [dead]

        • By Teever 2025-04-2521:37

          https://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.

        • By kcatskcolbdi 2025-04-2516:492 reply

          and something tells me the side that spent decades demonizing firearm ownership probably can't win an arms race against their ideological opponents.

          • By sophacles 2025-04-2517:543 reply

            What a strange set of ideas presented in such a small sentence fragment.

            * Very few people demonize gun ownership. They just want some laws preventing criminals from owning guns.

            * Guns are very easy to obtain, the "arms race" is a trip to the local sporting goods store. Sure, the weapon may not be super tacti-cool with a bunch of skulls and shit, but I'm pretty sure that even without all the virtue signalling decals it does the primary job just fine.

            • By dylan604 2025-04-2518:052 reply

              Do you think those that have been opposed to current gun laws would be nearly as proficient at the use of their newly acquired weapon as opposed to those that have been collecting them for years?

              This just made up militia will be woefully untrained to handle anything. At least those that have their meeting in the woods practice to whatever extent they do, but that would be so much more than this recent trip to the sporting goods store.

              Whether you want to quibble over the words demonize, there are a lot of people that do not interpret the constitution to mean that just any ol' body can own a gun to the extent we allow today. The well regulated militia is part of that amendment, and gets left out quite conveniently. The local police departments are closer to the idea of a well regulated militia. The national guard are even closer of a match to me. The guys that run around in the woods believe they are fulfilling that role, but nobody really thinks they are well regulated other than whatever rules they choose to operate.

              Personally, I do not think that what we have today with the NRA and what not is what the framers had in mind. So you complain about demonizing being wrong and clearly on one end of the spectrum. I think that the NRA refusing any limits on guns is clearly the other end of that spectrum

              • By sophacles 2025-04-2518:391 reply

                I've taught people who had never held a gun to shoot. It takes an hour or two to get them to the point where they can get a nice grouping at a reasonable distance.

                I haven't owned a gun in 20 years (it's not my style). I go shooting every 3-4 years with some gun nut buddies who have big arsenals and go shooting often. I am a better shot than many of them.

                Armies have won wars while being comprised mostly of conscripted people who hadn't held a gun prior to the conflict breaking out.

                Point being - effective use of guns does not require deep proficiency nor long term regular training.

                • By dylan604 2025-04-2519:071 reply

                  Being able to shoot a gun at a paper target in the safety of a gun range is one thing. It's a different thing to do that when it's a person in front on you. It's also a totally different thing when that person in front of you is persons plural in the form of a trained opposing force and the bullets are coming at you. It takes training to quell that fear and be able to react in a manner that does not end with you full of lead.

                  When I've discussed training in this thread in other comments, this is what I was considering. Not target practice. Not being able reload a weapon. Specifically about mentally holding it together to not freeze, or even loose your ability to aim at something not a paper target in a gun range.

                  • By JumpCrisscross 2025-04-2521:441 reply

                    > Being able to shoot a gun at a paper target in the safety of a gun range is one thing. It's a different thing to do that when it's a person in front on you

                    Sure. I’m saying that the physical condition of most “militia” members doesn’t make for a threatening force.

                    In any case, if America went low-burn civil war, you’d pay the drug gangs to do your dirty work. The reason that’s the 20th century playbook is it works.

                    • By ben_w 2025-04-268:46

                      As drug gangs are discovering drone solutions, I wonder how far the USA is from functioning guns being as useful as prop guns in a civil war.

              • By JumpCrisscross 2025-04-2518:151 reply

                > Do you think those that have been opposed to current gun laws would be nearly as proficient at the use of their newly acquired weapon

                I don’t own a gun and I’m a better shot than half those militia types. The purpose of the guns isn’t to shoot them, it’s to deter. By the time it’s WACO, one side’s marksmanship isn’t really relevant.

                • By dylan604 2025-04-2518:281 reply

                  You can have 20 assault style weapons in your gun safe, but if that's where they are they do not act as a deterrent. They are only a deterrent when they are ready to be used. The purpose of a gun is to be shot. Confusing this is just some very excessive bending of logic. The intent of the shooter is an entirely different matter. They were not manufactured and then sold/purchased just to be in a display case. That's just what someone decided to with their purchase.

                  • By kilna 2025-04-2520:00

                    In fact, If you have 20 assault rifles in your safe you are a target for 20 or so revolutionaries. Oligarchs aside, most people of the hoarding political persuasion mistrust others and couldn't social engineer their way out of a paper bag.

            • By Duwensatzaj 2025-04-2518:19

              >* Very few people demonize gun ownership. They just want some laws preventing criminals from owning guns.

              Don't gaslight us. Democrats have been pushing civilian disarmament HARD recently.

              Restricted magazine sizes, requiring all transfers to go through a FFL, basic features bans, permits to purchase, restricting ammo purchases to FFLs raising prices, and now repeated attempts at semi-auto bans.

              This isn't focused on criminals, it's trying to discourage firearm ownership in general. When states ban the federal government marksmanship program from shipping firearms to civilians AFTER they have already been background checked by a federal agency it's clear there is no attempt to stop criminals.

            • By Ancapistani 2025-04-2518:092 reply

              > They just want some laws preventing criminals from owning guns.

              Criminals - you mean like illegal immigrants and those who aid and abet them?

              • By ty6853 2025-04-2518:161 reply

                The courts are a bit split on this. Recently in illinois a judge found an illegal immigrant is not a prohibited person if they meet some standard of community ties/integration, although I've totally forgotten what criteria the judge used.

                • By selimthegrim 2025-04-2519:48

                  Remember that the McDonald case incorporated the second amendment to the states so the judges have to decide these sorts of questions for people who are out of status.

              • By sophacles 2025-04-2518:242 reply

                I mean criminals: people convicted of a crime for which one of the punishments is revocation of gun ownership rights.

                The important word here is convicted. As we were all taught in elementary school - there is a process required by the constitution in which a person goes to a special meeting (called a trial) where a whole bunch of people examine evidence and ask a lot of questions about that evidence to determine if a person is a criminal. If the decisions is they are a criminal, then they have been convicted. HTH!

                • By ty6853 2025-04-2518:331 reply

                  That's not true.

                  You do not need to be convicted, you do not even need to be charged.

                  Since this is a hot topic, look at Abrego Garcia. His wife filed a restraining order. The initial order was slightly different than the temporary order 3 days later, which added one thing -- surrendering any firearms (this is bog standard, they do this in Maryland even for citizens). No matter that she did not even bother to show up for the adversarial final order, so he had his gun rights taken totally ex-parte without even a criminal charge or a fully adjudicated civil order nor any chance to face his accuser wife. Even david lettermen had his gun rights temporarily revoked because a woman in another state claimed he was harassing through her TV via secret messages in his television program [].

                  But that's not all, you can totally have gun rights taken away without any civil or criminal process. If you use illegal drugs, you cannot own weapons either, that is established without any due process to decide if you use or not, simply putting down you use marijuana on a 4473 will block a sale as will simply owning a marijuana card whether you use marijuana or not.

                  [] http://www.ejfi.org/PDF/Nestler_Letterman_TRO.pdf

                  • By Ancapistani 2025-04-2521:271 reply

                    This is exactly my point, and what I've been driving at in this thread.

                    This could not possibly be a concern based on abrogation of due process - because there have been many similar due process violations concerning firearms, and I've never seen a single article submitted here about those.

                    Frankly, I don't see how immigration is any more relevant to this site than civil rights.

                    • By dylan604 2025-04-2521:37

                      first knee jerk type answer is that there are a lot of people in the tech industry that are here on some sort of visa and are not citizens which means that they very much are subject to any changes to immigration enforcement.

                • By Ancapistani 2025-04-2520:11

                  OK - so based on this, you're 100% opposed to "red-flag laws"/"extreme risk protection orders", right?

          • By dylan604 2025-04-2517:00

            didn't think of that salient detail

      • By southernplaces7 2025-04-2518:542 reply

        Yes 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.

        • By djeastm 2025-04-2519:34

          Maybe those groups are better at disguising themselves.

        • By senderista 2025-04-2519:12

          I guess you weren't there for the CHOP, where there were masked antifa wandering around with AR-15s and intimidating business owners.

      • By mindslight 2025-04-2516:591 reply

        We've got National Guards under the command of state governors for a reason. Just sayin'.

        • By dragonwriter 2025-04-2518:391 reply

          > 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.)

          • By mindslight 2025-04-261:551 reply

            If the federal government is no longer beholden to the law because the king executive refuses to follow or enforce inconvenient laws, would it be appropriate to consider it a rebellion? It seems more like basic law enforcement to me.

            I was under the impression that state governors could refuse to federalize their National Guards. A quick read on Wikipedia points to the Constitution saying it would take Congress for the federal government to take command unilaterally. That could be a sticking point by the time it gets to the point where there is enough support for state governors to be deploying their state National Guards to keep the peace versus the lawless federal executive.

            • By dragonwriter 2025-04-2616:291 reply

              > I was under the impression that state governors could refuse to federalize their National Guards.

              They cannot, under the Constitution. Of course, at the point the National Guard is being mobilized to prevent actions of the federal government, we are deep into a constitutional crisis and a short distance from a (possibly very brief) active civil war.

              > A quick read on Wikipedia points to the Constitution saying it would take Congress for the federal government to take command unilaterally.

              Congress has already done so , setting rules which require only a Presidential determination to invoke [0], and Presidents have used the authority so granted specifically to deal with very much the same state rebellion scenario you suggest, notably Eisenhower in 1957 when the Arkansas National Guard was deployed to prevent the implementation of a federal court order integrating Central High School in Little Rock: Eisenhower did the one-two punch of federalizing the entire Arkansas National Guard, ordered them away, and also deployed the Army (101st Airborne) to enforce the order. [1]

              [0] in the Insurrection Act; the specific relevant provision is at 10 USC § 252: “Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.” (emphasis added)

              [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine

              • By mindslight 2025-04-2617:10

                I mean, we're deep into a constitutional crisis right now - the president has asserted himself to be a king unbeholden to the law, and installed loyal supplicants who agree with that interpretation. So the check of the judiciary (required for individual liberty, among other things. and as imperfect as it was) is effectively dead.

                I keep looking for angles where we can organize bottom-up within existing governance structures to resist this anti-American tyrant, that won't just result in an escalation where any resistance is attacked and the chaos then used as fuel for more support of authoritarianism (like the police riots of 2020). Something besides the single obvious lever of getting Congress on board with impeachment.

                At any rate thank you for responding. By your other comments I knew you'd be able to point to something specific. The National Guards could certainly still play a role in defending the United States as this conflict escalates, but that baseline dynamic creates a much higher bar to clear.

      • By gosub100 2025-04-2517:122 reply

        Why don't you organize one?

        • By JumpCrisscross 2025-04-2517:261 reply

          > 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.

          • By ty6853 2025-04-2517:351 reply

            This is basically what Ammon Bundy did, and most of the US hates him for it. The federal government tried many times to jail him but ultimately he was found innocent everytime. Finally they managed to get him by a friendly judge who had a husband high up in the BLM, awarding an ungodly high lawsuit when he helped an innocent mother get her baby back by summonsing his protest-militia to protest a hospital that conspired to have the baby taken by child services.

            Seriously, listen to some videos of Ammon Bundy actually speak (he is pro immigration rights as well, despite the 'far-right' label). Not what you hear from the media or others or under the influence of a political agenda. Most of what he says is 99% in line with your thought process here.

            • By JumpCrisscross 2025-04-2518:18

              > most of the US hates him for it

              Invisible enemies are hard to rally against.

        • By dmoy 2025-04-2518:132 reply

          It is illegal in all 50 states to organize a militia.

          • By dragonwriter 2025-04-2518:211 reply

            It is legal in all 50 states to organize a militia, it is illegal in all 50 states to do certain things as a militia including (the exact rules vary by state) things like participating in civil disorder, planning to participate in civil disorder, training for sabotage or guerilla warfare, etc.

            Of course, since the purpose being suggested here is literally the purported urgent need to engage in armed rebellion against federal authorities, the concern that organizing a militia for that purpose would be constrained by merely "organizing a militia" being illegal is a bit odd. Waging war against the federal government, or conspiring to do so, is--even if one argues that it is morally justified by the government violating its Constitutional constraints--both clearly illegal and likely to be subject to the absolute maximum sanction. The legality of organizing a militia in general hardly makes a difference, either to the legal or practical risk anyone undertaking such a venture would face.

            • By dmoy 2025-04-2519:27

              Fair, I should have explicitly stated "it's illegal in all 50 states to organize a militia for this purpose"

              (Edit: also if we're being pedantic about it, >25 states have laws against forming private militias at all)

          • By ty6853 2025-04-2518:201 reply

            I know what study you are reading and the case it uses to argue that is highly flawed.

      • By esbranson 2025-04-2517:092 reply

        [flagged]

        • By lolinder 2025-04-2517:201 reply

          Party 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...

          • By esbranson 2025-04-2517:434 reply

            [flagged]

            • By dragonwriter 2025-04-2517:55

              > > Party composition changes over time, and the people who made up the KKK switched parties starting when JFK backed the civil rights movement.

              > George "segregation forever" Wallace got a number of votes at the 1976 Democratic National Convention

              1.89% of the votes, yes. "Starting when" doesn't mean "immediately completed on" (the mainly civil rights-related phase of the unusually long overlapping realignment period that started with the New Deal, as well as the realignment period itself, completed around the mid-1990s; if you wanted to stake a specific endpoint marker for it, immediately after the 1994 midterm elections is probably the best point.)

              > and controlled that Party well into the 1980s.

              George Wallace obviously never "controlled" the Democratic Party, and certainly not into the 1980s. (Now the state party in Alabama, sure, but the state party and the national party are not the same thing.)

              > As much as we don't want it to be, it's the same Democratic Party.

              It's not, and you can tell it is not by seeing which of the major parties people waving confederate flags and openly preaching white supremacy demonstrate for and advocate for and turn out for on election day.

              That's how political realignments work.

            • By lolinder 2025-04-2517:53

              I said the process started with JFK. Trump moved the needle a lot in the last 8 years, too, so it clearly wasn't finished then either and probably still hasn't finished, because parties are messy dynamic things that change all the time.

              I never saw myself voting Democrat until 2016, yet here we are three elections later and it's looking like I'd better settle in.

            • By exe34 2025-04-2517:571 reply

              so 55-80 years ago... anything more recent?

              • By esbranson 2025-04-3023:29

                Robert Byrd dropping N-bombs into the 21st century.

        • By joquarky 2025-04-2517:24

          Please read up on the Dunning Kruger effect.

      • By s1artibartfast 2025-04-2518:44

        The 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.

    • By adolph 2025-04-2517:131 reply

      > 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.

        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.
      
      https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wied.11...

      • By Larrikin 2025-04-2517:491 reply

        [flagged]

        • By adolph 2025-04-2520:431 reply

          If 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.

          • By habinero 2025-04-2521:481 reply

            Why would you assume that? It's entirely plausible that a politically motivated set of agents decided to punish this judge.

            • By adolph 2025-04-2523:16

              > It's entirely plausible that a politically motivated set of agents decided to punish this judge.

              Do you mean the agents decided to punish the judge by staging an immigration arrest in order to elicit allegedly unlawful and weird behavior?

              The assertions of the affidavit do not have bearing upon whether the proceedings afterward are political in nature or not.

              The judge adjourned the alleged wife beater’s hearing without a motion known to the victims or prosecution who were all there waiting. Leaving everything else aside, that is behavior that indicates prejudice for the defendant, a real WTF move.

    • By FireBeyond 2025-04-2517:08

      > 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.

    • By Centigonal 2025-04-2516:237 reply

      What 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?"

      • By crooked-v 2025-04-2516:28

        It's not related to legal proceedings, so, no.

        The point of the arrest is to pressure judges into illegally doing it anyway.

      • By rolph 2025-04-2516:35

        you 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.

      • By lliamander 2025-04-2518:481 reply

        The right move would have been simply to not help Flores-Ruiz evade ICE.

        • By mulmen 2025-04-2519:141 reply

          Allegedly.

          • By lliamander 2025-04-2519:272 reply

            [flagged]

            • By lliamander 2025-04-260:42

              I should probably clarify - I don't mean to presume to know if the judge did it, I just mean I agree with the above poster's qualifier.

      • By dfxm12 2025-04-2518:32

        According to ICE? "Comply with whatever we say". It's obvious that the current admin is operating autocratically, outside the law.

      • By marcusverus 2025-04-2518:521 reply

        He 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.

        • By Centigonal 2025-04-2519:36

          I 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.

      • By eterps 2025-04-2516:28

        My thoughts exactly.

      • By NoMoreNicksLeft 2025-04-2516:31

        Judges 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.

    • By spamizbad 2025-04-2516:29

      This to me seems like a completely lawful act on the part of the judge?

    • By ajross 2025-04-2519:261 reply

      > 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.

      • By gazebo64 2025-04-2520:361 reply

        > 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.

        • By ajross 2025-04-2520:451 reply

          Hold 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.

          • By gazebo64 2025-04-2522:04

            >Hold up, all that stuff is completely unattested (and would have to be facts tried before a jury anyway).

            I mean, it was going to be attested until the judge decided to adjourn his proceedings and push him out the back door to avoid ICE. He's charged with domestic abuse.

            >But more: What if the suspect was in court on an immigration concern?

            Based on my limited understanding of immigration law I'd agree that there's probably a valid mechanism for the judge to legally intervene in the deportation to let the immigration concern be addressed -- but that isn't what happened here. The defendant was there for a criminal charge of domestic abuse and the judge essentially canceled his hearing and snuck him out the back to prevent ICE from executing a legal order to deport someone who is here illegally and has already been deported once before.

            >The point of the Rule of Law is that you don't empower individuals to make decisions about justice, ever.

            That's why the judge is being arrested, because she as an individual skirted legal process to interrupt a lawful deportation (allegedly).

    • By tedivm 2025-04-2516:521 reply

      The ICE agents didn't have a warrant, so the judge was under no legal obligation to say anything to them at all.

      • By dionian 2025-04-2516:572 reply

        according to this story, they had a warrant: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2025/04/23/ice-...

        • By tedivm 2025-04-2517:16

          According 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...

        • By kabdib 2025-04-2517:151 reply

          note 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]

          • By Sharlin 2025-04-2518:161 reply

            So just as valid as a piece of scratch paper with "WARANT" scrawled on it with a crayon.

            • By rufus_foreman 2025-04-2522:22

              Writing "WARANT" in crayon on a piece of scratch paper will not give you the authority to detain someone who is in the country illegally. It is my understanding that a valid ICE administrative warrant gives an ICE officer the authority to detain the person named on the warrant. And in cases like the one in question where ICE has ample time to get the warrant, it is my understanding that an ICE officer without the warrant would not have the authority to detain someone who is in the country illegally.

              What the ICE warrant doesn't give is the authority to conduct a search of private property without permission. Which the agents in this case were not attempting to do.

    • By duxup 2025-04-2517:04

      Doesn'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....

    • By Jtsummers 2025-04-2516:096 reply

      > 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.

      • By whats_a_quasar 2025-04-2516:342 reply

        To 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...

        • By 542354234235 2025-04-2517:12

          But judges can be arrested for doing nothing illegal to intimidate and bully them into not acting based on settled law.

      • By csomar 2025-04-2516:301 reply

        > 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.

        • By KennyBlanken 2025-04-2516:341 reply

          ICE 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.

      • By jandrese 2025-04-2516:191 reply

        I 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.

        • By dylan604 2025-04-2516:391 reply

          while 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.

          • By wat10000 2025-04-2516:55

            I'd bet on malicious compliance so they can show that their good and honest work is being impeded by elitist judges.

      • By analog31 2025-04-2516:33

        For all the judge could have known, the agents weren't coming back.

      • By s1artibartfast 2025-04-2518:591 reply

        The 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

        • By Jtsummers 2025-04-2519:39

          That 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).

      • By KennyBlanken 2025-04-2516:321 reply

        Immigration 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.

        • By prepend 2025-04-2516:59

          I 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.

          [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325

    • By armchairhacker 2025-04-2516:111 reply

      This 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.

      • By kemayo 2025-04-2516:281 reply

        I 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.

        • By rectang 2025-04-2516:37

          According 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.

    • By phendrenad2 2025-04-2516:082 reply

      Sounds 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.

      • By euroderf 2025-04-2516:421 reply

        Going from "redirect blame" to "make an arrest" is a significant escalation.

        • By ceejayoz 2025-04-2516:48

          That'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...

      • By phendrenad2 2025-04-2815:16

        Looks 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.

    • By euroderf 2025-04-2516:41

      IANAL 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.

    • By rustcleaner 2025-04-2516:52

      >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.

    • By wonderwonder 2025-04-2518:46

      "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.

    • By timewizard 2025-04-2518:53

      > 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.

    • By dudeinjapan 2025-04-2516:324 reply

      Umm… why didn’t the agents just wait patiently until the proceeding was done?

      • By pseudo0 2025-04-2517:572 reply

        They 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.

        • By mmooss 2025-04-2518:19

          One side alleges that, to be clear. We haven't heard the judge's version, heard from witnesses, seen evidence, nor had it adjudicated.

        • By lincon127 2025-04-2616:00

          Reading 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.

      • By duxup 2025-04-2517:07

        It does seem like they could have gotten what they wanted by just trying to do their job a little more such as, waiting.

      • By ceejayoz 2025-04-2516:35

        I don't think I've ever encountered a CBP employee I'd describe as "patient".

      • By rolph 2025-04-2516:39

        LEOs are trained to "be the one in control"

    • By dlachausse 2025-04-2515:511 reply

      [flagged]

    • By potato3732842 2025-04-2516:342 reply

      the 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.

      • By kevin_thibedeau 2025-04-2516:411 reply

        She was convicted for lying, not for the trading.

        • By potato3732842 2025-04-2516:55

          That 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.

      • By kylehotchkiss 2025-04-2516:59

        "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.

  • By jawiggins 2025-04-2516:396 reply

    The 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...

    • By dang 2025-04-2518:32

      Thanks - I've changed the URL to that article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/04/25/... above.

    • By crooked-v 2025-04-2516:464 reply

      I 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.

      • By lurk2 2025-04-2517:084 reply

        United 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/...

        • By mrguyorama 2025-04-2520:522 reply

          >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.

          • By phendrenad2 2025-04-2815:18

            Judges are held to a higher standard than the general public. Look up judicial conduct standards, what you seek is covered fully.

          • By dmix 2025-04-2522:561 reply

            There was a series of other steps in the case before she let the guy use a door the public never uses. Including rushing his case through after confronting the agents and adjourning it without notifying the attorneys present in the court room. She instructed him through the door before the basic administrative tasks of the case were done.

            If the details of what their witness (court deputy) says is true then it's pretty obvious what happened here.

            Whether the government should give State judges that leeway is another issue.

            • By phendrenad2 2025-04-2815:072 reply

              We really need a new HN. The fact that people will downvote your comment, which is literally 100% correct, simply because they want to believe a falsehood, is pretty sad. This isn't Hacker News, it's Delusion News.

              Another possibility is for downvotes to be public, and then allow people to "filter out" downvoters who seem politically motivated (a personal list would be fine, I assume it's like 5 people). HN can't really survive in the year 2025 without some radical anti-politics technology.

              • By AlexeyBelov 2025-05-0118:37

                It's funny coming from someone with your comment history. You know it's public, right?

              • By Ajedi32 2025-04-2914:16

                The usual HN solution to this problem is to just flag purely political stories and not discuss politics.

                I agree any system that ranks posts purely on the ratio of upvotes to downvotes isn't well equipped to handle discussions of controversial topics. Unless there's a strong culture of respecting dissenting opinions it inevitably just turns into an echo chamber for one side or the other. There needs to be some way to filter out votes motivated by ideology rather than post quality.

                X's Community Notes has the right idea I think, in that its algorithm takes into account the ideological biases of the voters and ranks notes based on the overall consensus across multiple ideological perspectives rather than just on whichever ideological perspective has the greatest total number of votes. That's a lot harder to implement though.

        • By jasonlotito 2025-04-2519:151 reply

          So, based on the affidavit and the facts presented in the article, we know this doesn't apply to the Judge.

          • By lurk2 2025-04-2522:17

            > 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.

            Perhaps you’re a lawyer with greater insight into this issue than I have. The actions described in the article satisfy the plain reading of the terms “conceal, harbor, or shield from detection.”

            The intuitive reading seems to be further corroborated by the case law:

            > The word "harbor" […] means to lodge or to aid or to care for one who is secreting himself from the processes of the law. The word "conceal" […] means to hide or to secrete or to keep out of sight or to aid in preventing the discovery of one who is secreting himself from the processes of the law.

            > *The statute proscribes acts calculated to obstruct the efforts of the authorities to effect arrest of the fugitive,* but it does not impose a duty on one who may be aware of the whereabouts of the fugitive, although having played no part in his flight, to reveal this information on pain of criminal prosecution.

            Emphasis mine.

            https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual...

        • By gosub100 2025-04-2519:291 reply

          The 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.

          • By Jensson 2025-04-2520:231 reply

            > I also fail to see how she "concealed" him either.

            Using a special backdoor to avoid agents is "concealing", she allegedly did that to prevent him from being seen by the agents.

            • By SauciestGNU 2025-04-2520:491 reply

              [flagged]

              • By Jensson 2025-04-2521:03

                > And also why should this judge suffer just because the toothless inbreds at the secret police were too fucking dumb to cover all the exits?

                They did catch the guy, just it was more work for them. All she did was cause them more work.

        • By ein0p 2025-04-2518:462 reply

          A 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.

          • By exe34 2025-04-2520:59

            > Read between the lines, sort of like people used to read Pravda in the Soviet Union.

            To be fair, you're not far off at this point.

          • By gosub100 2025-04-2523:031 reply

            This is why I don't believe 90% of what they say about Trump. As soon as he took office in 2017 it was so obvious that MSM was paid to absolutely destroy him. Then in 2021 suddenly everyone single problem wasn't due to the president anymore.

            • By ein0p 2025-04-264:011 reply

              I woke up to this in 2016 when theretofore beloved public figure Donald Trump turned into literally Hitler immediately after he descended down that elevator in the Trump tower, all without changing a single opinion he'd ever held. And it's been unrelenting ever since.

              • By gosub100 2025-04-2613:08

                and he was a former democrat! I'm not saying he's perfect, I'm not saying he's sophisticated, or that he hasn't said some stupid things. No way, there are way better republican candidates. But TDS is real.

      • By lolinder 2025-04-2517:071 reply

        What'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.

        • By phendrenad2 2025-04-2815:21

          You 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.

      • By dionian 2025-04-2517:001 reply

        there is usually only one exit to a courtroom, in the back

        • By crooked-v 2025-04-2519:47

          No, there are usually several entrances/exits, such as for jurors, prisoners, judge's chambers, and the general public.

      • By xyzzy9563 2025-04-2518:103 reply

        It's a crime to harbor or aid illegals in evading federal authorities. So this is a legal obligation of every person.

        • By neilpointer 2025-04-2519:13

          it's also unconstitutional to deny people due process but that's clearly been disregarded by the current administration. Reap what you sow.

        • By insane_dreamer 2025-04-2519:551 reply

          Except 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.)

          • By Jensson 2025-04-2521:061 reply

            An administrative warrant is still valid for arrest, it doesn't need to be signed by a judge. If you think it needs to be then laws needs to be changed, but that is how laws are right now.

            • By insane_dreamer 2025-04-2617:16

              It's not valid for arrest on private premises, like a courthouse. Only out in public.

              So the judge is no more "obstructing justice" than if I refuse to open the door to let ICE agents in to arrest someone with an administrative warrant, and then that person leaves out the back door.

              ICE should have obtained a judicial warrant, but they didn't. That's their fault.

        • By DrillShopper 2025-04-2520:59

          [flagged]

    • By bix6 2025-04-2517:09

      From 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?

    • By Miner49er 2025-04-2516:552 reply

      How in the world is this an arrestable offense. Escorting someone out of a room?

      • By lolinder 2025-04-2517:022 reply

        If 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.

        • By AIPedant 2025-04-2517:271 reply

          The 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.

          • By lolinder 2025-04-2517:331 reply

            The charges against her are not about her behavior during her court, they're about what happened once the court was adjourned and the defendant was starting to leave. She successfully defended the process within her own courtroom and it's alleged that she went a step further in securing the defendant from their impending arrest on an unrelated charge.

            There's definitely a conversation to be had about whether people should be safe from immigration law enforcement while within a courthouse, but at the moment as I understand it that is not a protection that exists.

            • By AIPedant 2025-04-2517:57

              It doesn't matter if court was adjourned, she was still at work and performing her official duties. In particular she asked the ICE agents if they had a judicial warrant and was told no, it was administrative. A federal judicial warrant clearly outranks a local judge and it would be fine to arrest her if she defied it. It is not clear that an order from the executive branch does the same. That doesn't mean local judges are immune from federal prosecution (e.g. corruption charges if someone takes money to rule favorably), but there is a fairly high bar, I don't think her behavior even comes close to probable cause for obstruction of justice or shielding an undocumented immigrant.

              The reason every other administration besides Trump refused to go into local courthouses to deport people wasn't about "whether people should be safe from immigration enforcement," it was about separation of powers.

        • By Miner49er 2025-04-2517:12

          I 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.

    • By euroderf 2025-04-2516:441 reply

      There has to be precedents in case law for how to assess this.

    • By xpe 2025-04-2516:50

      See 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)

HackerNews