The Brief
What You Need to Know. No More, No Less.
A Troubling Case Against a Wisconsin Judge
Federal prosecutors are charging a sitting Wisconsin judge for allegedly helping a man avoid ICE—an unprecedented move that raises major concerns about judicial independence and the politicization of immigration enforcement.
On May 15, 2025, Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan pleaded not guilty to federal charges of obstructing immigration enforcement. Prosecutors allege that she helped Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a man reportedly in the country without legal status, leave the courthouse through a nonpublic exit to avoid arrest by ICE agents. The battery case against Flores-Ruiz had just been dismissed. Now, based on minimal evidence, including vague security footage and a court deputy’s account, Judge Dugan faces a criminal trial.
Her legal team has moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that she acted within her lawful discretion as a judge and is immune from prosecution. The case raises significant concerns about federal overreach and the politicization of immigration enforcement. It is virtually unprecedented to prosecute a sitting judge for a split-second decision made within the courthouse, and many see this as an attempt to intimidate the judiciary.
Beyond the courtroom, this indictment sends a chilling message: that federal prosecutors may criminally charge state judges whose actions, however legal, conflict with ICE’s objectives. Whether or not one agrees with Judge Dugan’s conduct, the prosecution threatens to erode judicial independence and weaponize immigration enforcement in ways that undermine basic principles of due process and state sovereignty.
Source: AP News – Wisconsin Judge Pleads Not Guilty to Helping Man Evade ICE
SCOTUS Block Trump’s Attempt to Deport Venezuelans Under Wartime Law
In a critical decision, the U.S. Supreme Court stopped the Trump administration from using a wartime law to deport Venezuelans without due process. As a defense attorney, I see this as a strong reaffirmation that the rule of law still matters—whether in criminal court or immigration proceedings.
In a major ruling this week, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked the Trump administration from using a centuries-old wartime law to deport Venezuelan migrants without proper legal procedures. The administration claimed national security concerns, but many targeted individuals had no criminal records and at least one man was deported despite a court order protecting him.
As a criminal defense attorney, I see this decision as a powerful reminder: due process isn’t optional. Whether you’re facing criminal charges or immigration proceedings, the government must follow the law. No one should be detained or deported without a fair opportunity to respond.
This case underscores why legal representation matters and why courts still serve as an essential check when the government overreaches.
Source: Reuters - U.S. Supreme Court maintains block on Trump deportations under wartime law
What Is a Motion for a Required Finding of Not Guilty in Massachusetts?
A motion for required finding of not guilty asks the judge to dismiss the case after the Commonwealth rests. Learn how it works in Massachusetts trials.
In a Massachusetts criminal trial, a motion for a required finding of not guilty is one of the most important tools a defense lawyer has. It’s a way to ask the judge to dismiss the case before it ever goes to the jury.
Under Mass. R. Crim. P. 25(a), the defense can make this motion after the Commonwealth closes its case. The judge has to look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and decide whether a rational jury could find each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
If the evidence falls short, even slightly, the judge must allow the motion and enter a not guilty finding. No jury vote. No further argument. The case ends right there.
I’ve used this motion to win cases when the Commonwealth’s witnesses contradicted themselves, when key facts weren’t proven, or when the evidence simply didn’t meet the legal standard, even if it sounded bad at first glance.
Judges are sometimes reluctant to take a case away from the jury, but the law is clear. If the prosecution doesn’t meet its burden, the defense has every right to ask for a required finding, and sometimes, that’s all it takes to win.