Justice is supposed to be blind—not complicit.
If the federal allegations are accurate, Judge Hannah Dugan didn’t just turn a blind eye to a fugitive in her courtroom—she opened the back door and showed him the way out.
In doing so, Judge Dugan broke faith with the law, the victims of the case before her, and the judiciary itself. She allegedly transformed her courtroom into an escape hatch for a fugitive—not a forum for justice—endangering not only the integrity of her office but also the safety of law enforcement officers, innocent bystanders, and even the very defendant she abetted in flight.
Judicial power was never meant to be wielded like a trapdoor lever beneath the feet of federal agents. It was meant to uphold accountability—not help fugitives elude it.
According to news reports and the federal criminal complaint, ICE agents arrived at Judge Dugan’s courtroom on April 18 to arrest Jorge Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican national previously deported in 2013, present in the nation unlawfully, and now facing state charges of misdemeanor battery involving domestic abuse and violence against three individuals.
According to the FBI affidavit, someone from the state Public Defender’s Office photographed the ICE arrest team and alerted Dugan’s clerk that immigration officers were present. Dugan then became “visibly angry,” according to the bailiff, and called the situation “absurd.”
An assistant district attorney heard someone announce, “ICE is here,” and Dugan reportedly told the courtroom she would contact Chief Judge Carl Ashley before leaving.
She confronted the ICE team and insisted they needed a judicial warrant—not just the administrative warrant they possessed—before telling them they would need to speak with Chief Judge Ashley.
Meanwhile, Flores-Ruiz and his attorney were headed toward the public exit when Dugan allegedly said, “Wait, come with me,” according to one witness, “forcefully motioned” them toward the bench. She then led them out through the jury door, a restricted access point defendants not in custody are not permitted to use.
She returned to her courtroom and continued her docket—but not Flores-Ruiz’s case. Later that morning, the state prosecutor present in court to handle the matter realized that the case had never been called and inquired with the court. Only then did the attorney learn that Flores-Ruiz’s case had been adjourned—without the prosecutor’s knowledge, input, or participation—even though the victims were represented and present in the courtroom.
How is this impartial? And how is it due process for the victims, who were denied notice and an opportunity to be heard before their case was sidelined?
Flores-Ruiz was later spotted in the public hallway, appearing to “look around,” when an agent entered the elevator with him and his attorney. They exited the courthouse through the Ninth Street public exit. When the arrest team identified themselves, Flores-Ruiz turned and fled down the street. He was apprehended near the corner of West State and 10th Street.
A state court judge has no authority to thwart federal immigration law. Full stop. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution does not yield to personal ideology or courtroom improvisation—least of all from a state judge lionized by the radical left.
If the allegations are correct, Judge Dugan’s conduct was a deliberate usurpation of federal authority. And beyond the constitutional breach, her actions run squarely afoul of her duties under the Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct.
Specifically:
- SCR 60.02, which obligates a judge to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary;
- SCR 60.03(1), requiring respect for the law and conduct that promotes public confidence in the judiciary;
- SCR 60.03(2), prohibiting the use of judicial prestige to advance private interests;
- SCR 60.04(1)(b), demanding faithfulness to the law and immunity from partisan influence;
- SCR 60.04(1)(hm), commanding impartiality in applying the law and assuring the right to be heard by all interested parties;
- SCR 60.04(1)(m), barring misuse of nonpublic information; and
- SCR 60.04(2)(a), requiring diligence and neutrality in administrative responsibilities.
Taken together, these rules form the ethical perimeter of the judicial role. If the allegations hold, Judge Dugan didn’t merely step outside that perimeter—she obliterated it beyond recognition.
As the former Chief Judicial Officer of a state-level tribunal, I was bound by the judicial code of conduct—just as Judge Dugan is bound by Wisconsin’s. Adherence to judicial ethics is a solemn obligation and the bedrock of public trust in the courts.
And if the allegations against Judge Dugan are factual, her conduct would represent a breach so flagrant that no judge—left, right, or otherwise—could credibly defend it. Judicial power must be exercised with restraint, fidelity to the law, and neutrality. What she is accused of doing is a repudiation of that trust.
Judge Dugan’s alleged actions debased her courtroom into a venue for political sleight of hand—a stage for legal illusionism rather than principled adjudication.
And what, pray tell, of the battered victims Flores-Ruiz allegedly assaulted? What confidence could they possibly have in the impartiality of a court where the presiding judge was reportedly pulling Houdini routines behind the scenes?
A judge must be impartial. By allegedly inserting herself as a quasi-advocate for Flores-Ruiz and then actively facilitating his flight from justice, Judge Dugan ceased to be an unbiased adjudicator. She became an accomplice in the courtroom she was sworn to preside over. In doing so, she undermined the interests of the United States government and the safety of its citizens and compromised the possibility of justice for the litigants before her. Reprehensible is a mild adjective for such behavior.
This was not the noble act of a virtuous jurist safeguarding due process. It was an ideological magic trick—sleight of hand masquerading as judicial principle. And those now bleating “due process” in her defense reveal their ignorance or bad faith.
Due process is not evading lawful arrest, sneaking fugitives through side doors, or staging Houdini routines to indulge a judge’s political sympathies—especially while arguably denying due process to the victims left waiting in her courtroom.
If aiding violent offenders is now considered judicial heroism, then the left has abandoned even the pretense of being a party of law and order—and the Republic is more imperiled than many appreciate. The assiduous dumbing down of due process by the left these days is compromising constitutional governance.
For those who love slippery slope arguments, here’s one worth taking seriously: if shielding an assault suspect from arrest is now “defending due process,” what’s next? Do we accept judges spiriting away murder suspects if they disapprove of local prosecutors or law enforcement?
When Judge Dugan transformed the bench from a seat of justice into a stage for ideological theatrics—now you see him, now you don’t—she forfeited the robe as a symbol of law and order.
In her hands, it became a shield for misconduct and a weapon against the system she was sworn to uphold.
Judge Dugan’s arrest is not a threat to the rule of law.
She is.
Or rather, she was.
Now you see her. Now you don’t.
Charlton Allen is an attorney, former chief executive officer, and chief judicial officer of the North Carolina Industrial Commission. He is the founder of the Madison Center for Law & Liberty, Inc., editor of The American Salient, and the host of the Modern Federalist podcast. X: @CharltonAllenNC
American Thinker
Jesus Christ is King
