Between Law and Repression - Why the Hannah Dugan Case Is a Lesson in Trump's Judicial Battle

It was a spring day in Milwaukee when Judge Hannah Dugan left the courtroom - but she did not do so as an untouched representative of justice, rather as a defendant before a federal court. The accusation: She is said to have helped a man without valid immigration status evade arrest by ICE agents. Now a federal judge has recommended that the case against her go to trial - despite the serious concerns this precedent raises in legal circles and civil society.

The decision comes from U.S. Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph, who clarified on Monday: Even though judges are protected from civil lawsuits in the course of their official duties - this protection does not apply to criminal charges. Dugan had argued that she was merely fulfilling her judicial duties and therefore could not be held criminally liable. But Joseph disagreed: The question of whether Dugan’s actions were a legitimate part of her official role or a violation of the law is a matter for a jury - not a preliminary ruling by the court. At the center of the case is Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, 31 years old, without permanent residency in the U.S. According to the indictment, Dugan allegedly learned on April 18, 2025, that ICE agents were in the courthouse to arrest Ruiz - and then led him out of her courtroom through a side door. The agents eventually arrested Ruiz outside the building after a short chase. The charges: aiding in evading arrest (a misdemeanor) and obstruction of justice (a felony). If convicted, Dugan faces up to six years in prison and a $350,000 fine. Her attorney, former federal prosecutor Steven Biskupic, called the judge’s decision “disappointing” but immediately announced an appeal. The recommendation is “just one step on a long road,” Biskupic said, “to preserve the independence and integrity of our courts.”

In fact, the Hannah Dugan case is much more than a legal dispute. It stands as a prime example of the ideological campaign Donald Trump’s administration is waging against the federal judicial system. While Democratic lawmakers speak of an “intimidation trial” to discourage other judges, the Justice Department sees it as a necessary enforcement of immigration law. During Trump’s first term, a similar case in Massachusetts made headlines - a judge there was also accused of helping a migrant escape through a courthouse back door. That case was later dismissed. Will history repeat itself? What remains is a deep mistrust between Washington and the nation’s courtrooms. At a time when judicial independence is increasingly becoming a target of political instrumentalization, the Dugan case raises a burning question: Are judges still allowed to do what they believe is right - or only what is permitted from above? The answer may not lie in the law itself, but in the courage of those who interpret it.