In late April, the arrest of Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan was making nationwide news. Her arrest highlights both changes in the Trump administration’s federal immigration policy and broader interpretations of federal obstruction and base laws. This is a development that is likely to affect employees from a wide range of states and local employees.
Dugan’s arrest
Federal agents from agencies, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), entered Dugan’s court on a management warrant. This is arresting and arresting Doogan before Dugan’s attack, without the warrant issued by the agency, and without the requirement of the cause of probability. The man, Eduardo Flores Luis, is said to be illegally present in the United States, and federal officials are asking him to remove him.
Knowing that the agent lacked a judicial warrant to make an arrest, Dugan introduced the agent to the chief judge of the court. Witnesses said Flores Lewis later passed Dugan’s courtroom through a private exit and returned to the public corridors and elevators. DEA agents accompanied Flores Lewis in the elevator to inform other members of the arrest team of the news of his location.
Despite Flores Lewis’ arrest, Dugan was arrested and charged. Her alleged crime is to obstruct or obstruct the federal department process and hide people from arrest. This is not the first time a state court judge has faced federal criminal charges over alleged interference in immigration enforcement action. The final (and apparently other) time was Donald Trump’s first term.
The pre-Trump enforcement policy allowed trade-offs inherent to law enforcement. Allowing agents to implement federal immigration laws anywhere can certainly promote their mission, but it can do so in a way that undermines other important legal and policy objectives. Immigration enforcement near schools can disrupt the education of U.S. residents, including citizen children, when families and other members of the community are afraid of deportation. Enforcement of immigration in or near the court will have a negative impact on the operation of these courts as non-citizens may come to court and become calm to serve as important witnesses in criminal prosecution and civil litigation.
The Trump administration’s withdrawal of sensitive local guidance has allowed and indeed encouraged federal immigrants to enforce immigration laws everywhere, despite these shortcomings. Arrests can occur whether you can provide federal enforcement goals without accessing these sites, or if enforcement at these sites undermines important state policy considerations.
The administrative authorities have made it clear that they intend to use court arrests to undermine efforts in so-called “sanctuary” states and cities. The president himself has refusing to voluntarily cooperate in federal efforts and accused him of engaging in “lawless riots” over federal hegemony in recent executive orders. Non-citizen arrests in courts in sanctuary jurisdictions not only undermine the state’s judicial administration in certain cases, but also overturn the broader policy preferences of these states when it comes to the right balance between immigration police and other goals.
During the first Trump administration, court enforcement encouraged communication from state officials and called on the administration to reconsider these policies. The administration ignored these requests. Last month, a bipartisan group of former judges sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondy, who criticised Dugan’s arrest. The arrests show that this time the administration not only hopes that states prioritize federal immigration enforcement over their own laws and policies, but also shows that judges who fail to do so could face criminal consequences.
A broad interpretation of federal criminal law
This leads to a second major development, proven by Dugan’s arrest. The Trump administration may be planning to resort to a vast interpretation of federal criminal law to threaten and criminally punish those who disagree with immigration policies.
For example, charging Dugan under a disturbance code relies on a novel and extensive understanding of the meaning of obstructing administrative procedures. In particular, the Supreme Court recently held that similar and relevant provisions of the federal criminal code could be made. do not have It was used to convict participants on January 6, 2021 and will launch an attack on the Capitol to obstruct official lawsuits. But Trump officials now take the position that Dugan has hampered administrative proceedings, refusing to promote court arrests by agents who lack a judicial warrant.
Trump’s designated “border emperor” Tom Homan has also made his intention to encourage federal prosecutors to use similar bases and concealment charges against broader national and local officials who do not fail to cooperate adequately in federal enforcement efforts. Homan’s threat of criminal prosecution follows an earlier statement by Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, who encourages federal prosecutors to criminally claim state and local officials that do not comply with legal immigration-related matters. Need it State or local conduct may be treated as a criminal if you fail to meet your ICE request. And when Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers recently sent a memorandum to a state employee who outlined the correct procedures under state law and outlined the correct procedures to request information, Homan repeatedly poses a criminal prosecution threat that could oppose Evers, urging a fierce response from the governor.
The Supreme Court has already rejected a vast interpretation of federal prevention laws in other contexts. However, the administration continues to read them and other federal criminal laws very extensively and appears willing to use the threat of criminal prosecution against a wide range of national and local (and of course, federal government) officials.
Put pressure on state and local officials
The continuing struggle against court immigrant arrests and the validity of interpreting federal criminal laws targeting state officials is part of the Trump administration’s major efforts to put pressure on state and local officials to enforce federal immigration laws. In fact, federal law does not require state and local government officials to spend their own resources to enforce federal immigration laws.
What council? I have it Completion means that state and local officials can obtain information from the federal government about the status of a person’s immigrant. The same provision prohibits legislation from enacting laws that prohibit or restrict government agencies from maintaining. Send to the Department of Homeland Security. or information regarding immigration laws for people who trade with federal, state, or local businesses.
The so-called “sanctuary law” – in fact, a diverse assortment of laws and policies at the state and local level, but generally does not violate these federal requirements. For example, such laws could prohibit state officials from collecting information about the immigration status of residents they have come into contact with, but such information collection is not required by federal law. Other laws may prohibit state officials from respecting federal requests to state officials to bind non-citizens who have pending further federal lawsuits. Again, these prohibitions have strong legal grounds. Not only did federal law not require such voluntary assistance, it actually found that compliance with the detainee’s request violated the fourth amendment right of the individual in detention.
The legislature may one day expand the requirements placed on state and local officials to cooperate with immigration enforcement efforts, but has not yet done so. Amendment 10th limits the ability to impose positive enforcement obligations on state and local officials, even if legislature acts. And many courts (but not all) have concluded that general law enforcement funds to the state and region cannot be terminated simply because the president refuses to accept the new immigration enforcement obligations at the request of the government.
In late April, the arrest of Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan was making nationwide news. Her arrest highlights both changes in the Trump administration’s federal immigration policy and broader interpretations of federal obstruction and base laws. This is a development that is likely to affect employees from a wide range of states and local employees.
••••
At the end of the day, the administration’s new approach to court arrests is important beyond showing oceanic changes in the way federal law enforcement acts within and near state courts. It must also be understood in the context of the administration’s broader attacks on state and local governments that do not embrace the maximalist vision of legal obligations to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. And that means that even minor, legal deviations from the immigration enforcement agenda could be exposed to widespread interpretations of the administration and the selective application of federal criminal law.
Jennifer M. Chacon is Bruce Tyson Mitchell Law Professor at Stanford Law School.
Suggested Quote: Jennifer M. Chacon, Ice Age State Courtsᴛᴀᴛcᴏᴜʀᴛrᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (May 22, 2025), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/state-courtous-ice-ege