>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
In January, Dugan’s legal team filed motions seeking either a full acquittal or a new trial. The filings challenged multiple aspects of the case, including the validity of the administrative warrant used by ICE, the jury instructions provided during trial, the interpretation of intent, and whether the obstruction statute was properly applied.
Her defense argued that her actions were within the scope of her judicial authority to manage courtroom proceedings. However, Judge Adelman rejected that reasoning, emphasizing that judicial position alone does not provide immunity from criminal conduct.
“As I noted in denying the motion to dismiss, there was no basis for granting immunity simply because the indictment described conduct that could be considered ‘part of a judge’s job,’” Adelman wrote in his 39-page decision.
The ruling also addressed Dugan’s broader argument that her conviction could set a precedent for criminal liability in situations where individuals merely interfere with or inconvenience immigration officers. Adelman dismissed that concern, stating that legal standards already account for intent and misconduct distinctions.
“Defendant takes issue with the concept that a corrupt motive can make lawful acts unlawful … it would be improper to hold [the law] cannot be applied to the conduct at issue here just because difficult line drawing issue may arise in other cases,” Adelman wrote.
The court’s findings laid out a detailed sequence of events from April 18, 2025, when Dugan reportedly learned that ICE agents were positioned outside her courtroom to detain Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, who was scheduled to appear before her.
Evidence presented at trial showed that Dugan involved another judge, Kristela Cervera, instructing her to confront the agents and direct them to Chief Judge Carl Ashley’s office to review an administrative warrant. Meanwhile, courtroom audio captured Dugan rapidly advancing Flores-Ruiz’s case, rescheduling it, and directing him and his attorney through a restricted jury-door exit into a private hallway, ultimately allowing them access to a public area where ICE agents were stationed.
Dugan has maintained that she did not intend to assist anyone in avoiding arrest and claimed she had no knowledge of Flores-Ruiz’s identity or the specifics of the warrant at the time. However, jurors were instructed that proving knowledge of identity was not required for obstruction, a point later challenged in her appeal.
Addressing that argument, Adelman drew a comparison to standard criminal evidence requirements:
“By way of analogy, in felony possession prosecutions the government typically identifies the firearm by make, model and serial number,” Adelman wrote. “But no one would argue the government is therefore required to prove the defendant knew the gun’s serial number.”
The court also rejected Dugan’s assertion that Flores-Ruiz was protected from civil arrest due to his scheduled court appearance, finding insufficient legal support for her claim that she was acting within judicial authority to enforce such a privilege.
Adding further weight to the ruling, Adelman pointed to recorded statements made by Dugan after the incident. In one exchange captured in courtroom audio, she remarked, “I’ll do it. I’ll take the heat.” She also told a colleague she was “in the doghouse” with the chief judge because she “tried to help that guy.”
With the motion denied, Dugan’s conviction remains firmly in place, marking a significant legal setback in a case that has raised broader questions about judicial conduct, courtroom authority, and the limits of interference in federal immigration enforcement operations.
