Wisconsin

President Trump has approved federal disaster aid for six states and tribes following storms and floods that occurred this spring and summer.

The disaster declarations, announced Thursday, will allow federal funding to flow to Kansas, North Carolina, North Dakota and Wisconsin, and for tribes in Montana and South Dakota. In each case except Wisconsin, it took Trump more than a month to approve the aid requests from local officials, continuing a trend of longer waits for disaster relief noted by a recent Associated Press analysis.

Trump has now approved more than 30 major natural disaster declarations since taking office in January. Before the latest batch, his approvals had averaged a 34-day wait from the time the relief was requested. For his most recent declarations, that wait ranged from just 15 days following an aid request for Wisconsin flooding in August to 56 days following a tribal request for Montana flooding that occurred in May.

The AP’s analysis showed that delays in approving federal disaster aid have grown over time, regardless of the party in power. On average, it took less than two weeks for requests for a presidential disaster declaration to be granted in the 1990s and early 2000s. That rose to about three weeks during the last decade under presidents from both major parties. During Trump’s first term in office, it took him an average of 24 days to approve requests.

White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told the AP that Trump is providing “a more thorough review of disaster declaration requests than any Administration has before him” to make sure that federal tax dollars are spent wisely.

But delays mean individuals must wait to receive federal aid for daily living expenses, temporary lodging and home repairs. Delays in disaster declarations also can hamper recovery efforts by local officials uncertain whether they will receive federal reimbursement for cleaning up debris and rebuilding infrastructure.

Trump’s latest declarations approved public assistance for local governments and nonprofits in all cases except Wisconsin, where assistance for individuals was approved. But that doesn’t preclude the federal government from later also approving public assistance for Wisconsin.

Preliminary estimates from Democratic Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers’ administration said more than 1,500 residential structures were destroyed or experienced major damage in August flooding at a cost of more than $33 million. There was also more than $43 million in public sector damage over six counties, according to the Evers administration.

Evers requested aid for residents in six counties, but Trump approved it only for three.

“I will continue to urge the Trump Administration to approve the remainder of my request, and I will keep fighting to make sure Wisconsin receives every resource that is needed and available,” Evers said in a statement in which he thanked Democratic officeholders for their efforts, but not Trump or any Republicans.

Trump had announced several of the disaster declarations — including Wisconsin’s — on his social media site while noting his victories in those states and highlighting their Republican officials. He received thanks from Democratic North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein and Republican officials elsewhere.

Trump’s approval of six major disaster declarations in one day would have been unusual for some presidents but not for him. Trump approved seven disaster requests on July 22 and nine on May 21.

But Trump has not approved requests for hazard mitigation assistance — a once-typical add-on that helps recipients build back with resilience — since February.

Lieb and Wildeman write for the Associated Press. AP writers Gabriela Aoun Angueira, Scott Bauer, Jack Dura and Gary D. Robertson contributed to this report.

Aug. 10 (UPI) — Rescue workers and emergency crews are responding to life-threatening flash flooding in the wake of record rainfall in Wisconsin, and more rain is in the forecast for Sunday night, officials said.

Officials were forced to close the Wisconsin State Fair early as nearly 8 inches of rain soaked Milwaukee and surrounding areas overnight Saturday, according to the National Weather Service, a record for two-day rainfall, prompting flood alerts and a disaster declaration.

Local officials reported even more rain than the official totals reported by the NWS. Milwaukee mayor Cavalier Johnson said some parts of the city had received as much as a foot of rain.

Fair organizers canceled a concert by Lynyrd Skynyrd on Saturday night and closed the fairgrounds early as rain continued to soak the area and severe weather created dangerous conditions for fairgoers.

The 11-day fair remained closed Sunday, the final day of the annual event, and social media posts showed cars partially submerged as attendees scrambled to leave the event.

Parts of Wauwatosa, just north of Milwaukee, was especially hard hit and many parts of the town remained under water Sunday morning, WISN reported.

Along the Menomonee River, police used loudspeakers and word of mouth to inform people that a popular sports complex was closed, and asked visitors to leave.

There were widespread road closures and power outages as a result of the severe weather, but as of Sunday afternoon, no weather-related deaths or serious injuries had been reported.

Firefighters responded to at least 614 emergency calls between 8 p.m. Saturday and 7 a.m. Sunday, the Milwaukee Fire Department reported.

MADISON, Wis. — The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s liberal majority struck down the state’s 176-year-old abortion ban on Wednesday, ruling 4-3 that it was superseded by newer state laws regulating the procedure, including statutes that criminalize abortions only after a fetus can survive outside the womb.

The ruling came as no surprise given that liberal justices control the court. One of them went so far as promising to uphold abortion rights during her campaign two years ago, and they blasted the ban during oral arguments in November.

The statute Wisconsin legislators adopted in 1849, widely interpreted as a near-total ban on abortions, made it a felony for anyone other than the mother or a doctor in a medical emergency to destroy “an unborn child.”

The ban was in effect until 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide nullified it. Legislators never officially repealed it, however, and conservatives argued that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe reactivated it.

Wisconsin Atty. Gen. Josh Kaul, a Democrat, filed a lawsuit that year arguing that abortion restrictions Republican legislators enacted during the nearly half-century that Roe was in effect trumped the ban. Kaul specifically cited a 1985 law that essentially permits abortions until viability. Some babies can survive with medical help after 21 weeks of gestation.

Lawmakers also enacted abortion restrictions under Roe requiring women undergo ultrasounds, wait 24 hours before having the procedure and provide written consent, and receive abortion-inducing drugs only from doctors during an in-person visit.

“That comprehensive legislation so thoroughly covers the entire subject of abortion that it was clearly meant as a substitute for the 19th century near-total ban on abortion,” Justice Rebeca Dallet wrote for the majority.

Sheboygan County Dist. Atty. Joel Urmanski, a Republican, defended the ban in court, arguing that it can coexist with the newer abortion restrictions.

Dane County Circuit Judge Diane Schlipper ruled in 2023 that the 1849 ban outlaws feticide — which she defined as the killing of a fetus without the mother’s consent — but not consensual abortions. Abortions have been available in the state since that ruling, but the state Supreme Court decision gives providers and patients more certainty that abortions will remain legal in Wisconsin.

Urmanski had asked the state Supreme Court to overturn Schlipper’s ruling without waiting for a decision from a lower appellate court.

The liberal justices all but telegraphed how they would rule. Justice Janet Protasiewicz stated on the campaign trail that she supports abortion rights. During oral arguments, Dallet declared that the ban was authored by white men who held all the power in the 19th century. Justice Jill Karofsky likened the ban to a “death warrant” for women and children who need medical care.

A solid majority of Wisconsin voters in the 2024 election, 62%, said abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to AP VoteCast. About one-third said abortion should be illegal in most cases, and only 5% said it should be illegal in all cases.

In a dissent, Justice Annette Ziegler called the ruling “a jaw-dropping exercise of judicial will.” She said the liberal justices caved in to their Democratic constituencies.

“Put bluntly, our court has no business usurping the role of the legislature, inventing legal theories on the fly in order to make four justices’ personal preference the law,” Ziegler said.

Urmanski’s attorney, Andrew Phillips, didn’t respond to an email. Kaul told reporters during a news conference that the ruling is a “major victory” for reproductive rights.

Heather Weininger, executive director of Wisconsin Right to Life, called the ruling “deeply disappointing.” She said that the liberals failed to point to any statute that explicitly repealed the 1849 ban.

“To assert that a repeal is implied is to legislate from the bench,” she said.

Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin asked the Supreme Court in February 2024 to decide whether the ban was constitutional. The court dismissed that case with no explanation Wednesday.

Michelle Velasquez, chief strategy officer for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, said Wednesday’s ruling creates stability for abortion providers and patients, but she was disappointed that the justices dismissed the constitutional challenge. She hinted that the organization might look next to challenge the state’s remaining abortion restrictions.

Kaul said he has no plans to challenge the remaining restrictions, saying the Legislature should instead revisit abortion policy.

Democratic-backed Susan Crawford defeated conservative Brad Schimel for an open seat on the court in April, ensuring liberals will maintain their 4-3 edge until at least 2028. Crawford has not been sworn in yet and was not part of Wednesday’s ruling.

Richmond writes for the Associated Press.

July 2 (UPI) — Wisconsin’s Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a ruling that invalidated an 1849 state law banning nearly all abortions and said Wisconsin women will continue to have access to critical abortion-related health services.

The 4-3 ruling by the Democratic-controlled state supreme court upheld a December 2023 decision by Dane County Judge Diane Schlipper in Kaul v. Urmanski that says Wisconsin’s strict abortion law did not apply to voluntary abortions, but did to feticide.

Justice Rebecca Dallet argued in the court’s majority opinion that the state effectively repealed its own 176-year-old law when lawmakers passed additional laws that regulated abortion access in Wisconsin, which was backed up in the lawsuit by state Attorney General Josh Kaul.

Dallet said the case was about “giving effect to 50 years’ worth of laws passed by the legislature about virtually every aspect of abortion, including where, when, and how healthcare providers may lawfully perform abortions.”

But she added that the state’s legislature, “as the people’s representatives, remains free to change the laws with respect to abortion in the future.

Then-Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, later appointed as U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services from 2001-2005 under former President George W. Bush, told UPI in 1990 that he would sign a bill that mandates minors seek parental consent for an abortion.

But Wednesday’s ruling by the state’s high court now ends statewide uncertainty over the issue after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling struck down the nearly 50-year-old Roe v. Wade, which guaranteed a woman’s constitutional right to abortion.

However, Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley, a member of its conservative minority, was critical of the court’s majority opinion.

On Wednesday, Bradley wrote that her colleagues erased “a law it does not like, making four lawyers sitting on the state’s highest court more powerful than the People’s representatives in the legislature.”

Notably, this year’s Wisconsin Supreme Court race saw national attention when then-White House DOGE adviser Elon Musk drew the ire of Kaul, the state’s chief law enforcement officer, after Musk directly got involved in a push to elect conservative Brad Schimel in the court race Musk said had the “destiny of humanity” at stake.

“Any remaining doubt over whether the majority’s decisions are motivated by the policy predilections of its members has been extinguished by its feeble attempt to justify a raw exercise of political power,” stated Bradley.

“The majority not only does violence to a single statute; it defies the People’s sovereignty,” she wrote.

MADISON, Wis. — A Wisconsin dairy farmer alleged in a federal lawsuit filed Monday that the Trump administration is illegally denying financial assistance to white farmers by continuing programs that favor minorities.

The conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty filed the lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture in federal court in Wisconsin on behalf of a white dairy farmer, Adam Faust.

Faust was among several farmers who successfully sued the Biden administration in 2021 for race discrimination in the USDA’s Farmer Loan Forgiveness Plan.

The new lawsuit alleges the government has continued to implement diversity, equity and inclusion programs that were instituted under former President Biden. The Wisconsin Institute wrote to the USDA in April warning of legal action, and six Republican Wisconsin congressmen called on the USDA to investigate and end the programs.

“The USDA should honor the President’s promise to the American people to end racial discrimination in the federal government,” Faust said in a written statement. “After being ignored by a federal agency that’s meant to support agriculture, I hope my lawsuit brings answers, accountability, and results from USDA.”

Trump administration spokesperson Anna Kelly did not immediately respond to an email Monday seeking comment.

The lawsuit contends that Faust is one of 2 million white male American farmers who are subject to discriminatory race-based policies at the USDA.

The lawsuit names three USDA programs and policies it says put white men at a disadvantage and violate the Constitution’s guarantee of equal treatment by discriminating based on race and sex.

Faust participates in one program designed to offset the gap between milk prices and the cost of feed, but the lawsuit alleges he is charged a $100 administrative fee that minority and female farmers do not have to pay.

Faust also participates in a USDA program that guarantees 90% of the value of loans to white farmers, but 95% to women and racial minorities. That puts Faust at a disadvantage, the lawsuit alleges.

Faust has also begun work on a new manure storage system that could qualify for reimbursement under a USDA environmental conservation program, but 75% of his costs are eligible while 90% of the costs of minority farmers qualify, the lawsuit contends.

A federal court judge ruled in a similar 2021 case that granting loan forgiveness only to “socially disadvantaged farmers” amounts to unconstitutional race discrimination. The Biden administration suspended the program and Congress repealed it in 2022.

The Wisconsin Institute has filed dozens of such lawsuits in 25 states attacking DEI programs in government. In its April letter to the USDA, the law firm that has a long history of representing Republicans said it didn’t want to sue “but there is no excuse for this continued discrimination.”

Trump has been aggressive in trying to end the government’s DEI efforts to fulfill a campaign promise and bring about a profound cultural shift across the U.S. from promoting diversity to an exclusive focus on merit.

Bauer writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court decided Thursday that a Catholic charity doesn’t have to pay Wisconsin unemployment taxes, one of a set of religious-rights cases the justices are considering this term.

The unanimous ruling comes in a case filed by the Catholic Charities Bureau, which says the state violated the 1st Amendment’s religious freedom guarantee when it required the organization to pay the tax while exempting other faith groups.

Wisconsin argues the organization has paid the tax for over 50 years and doesn’t qualify for an exemption because its day-to-day work doesn’t involve religious teachings. Much of the groups’ funding is from public money, and neither employees nor people receiving services have to belong to any faith, according to court papers.

Catholic Charities, though, says it qualifies because its disability services are motivated by religious beliefs and the state shouldn’t be making determinations about what work qualifies as religious. It appealed to the Supreme Court after Wisconsin’s highest court ruled against it. President Trump’s administration weighed in on behalf of Catholic Charities.

Wisconsin has said that a decision in favor of the charity could open the door to big employers like religiously affiliated hospitals pulling out of the state unemployment system as well.

The conservative-majority court has issued a string of decisions siding with churches and religious plaintiffs in recent years. This term, though, a plan to establish a publicly funded Catholic charter school lost when the justices deadlocked after Amy Coney Barrett recused herself.

The nine-member court is also considering a case over religious objections to books read in public schools. In those arguments, the majority appeared sympathetic to the religious rights of parents in Maryland who want to remove their children from elementary school classes using storybooks with LGBTQ characters.

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press.

MADISON, Wis. — A Wisconsin judge charged with helping a man illegally evade immigration agents is seeking donations to fund her court defense.

Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan announced Friday that she’s set up a fund to cover the costs of her defense. The fund issued a statement saying that the case against her is an “unprecedented attack on the independent judiciary by the federal government.”

Dugan has hired a group of high-powered lawyers led by former U.S. Atty. Steve Biskupic. She’s looking to tap into anger on the left over the case to help pay them. Dozens of people demonstrated outside Dugan’s arraignment Thursday at the federal courthouse in Milwaukee, demanding she be set free and accusing the Trump administration of going too far.

Federal prosecutors allege Eduardo Flores-Ruiz was in Dugan’s courtroom on April 18 for a hearing in a domestic violence case when Dugan learned immigration agents were in the courthouse looking to arrest him. According to court documents, Flores-Ruiz illegally returned to the U.S. after he was deported in 2013.

Angry that agents were in the courthouse and calling the situation “absurd,” Dugan led Flores-Ruiz out a back door in her courtroom, according to an FBI affidavit. Agents eventually captured him following a foot chase outside the building.

FBI agents arrested Dugan at the county courthouse on April 25. A grand jury on Tuesday indicted her on one count of obstruction and one count of concealing a person to prevent arrest. The charges carry a total maximum sentence of six years in federal prison.

Dugan pleaded not guilty during her arraignment. Her attorneys have filed a motion seeking to dismiss the case, arguing that she was controlling movement in her courtroom in her official capacity as a judge and therefore is immune from prosecution.

The state Supreme Court suspended Dugan following her arrest. A reserve judge has taken over her cases.

The fund statement said that Dugan plans to resume her work as a judge and they won’t accept contributions that could compromise her judicial integrity. She will accept money only from U.S. citizens but won’t take donations from Milwaukee County residents; attorneys who practice in the county; lobbyists; judges; parties with pending matters before any Milwaukee County judge; and county employees.

Former state Supreme Court Justice Janine Geske will manage the fund.

Richmond writes for the Associated Press.

MILWAUKEE — A Wisconsin judge pleaded not guilty Thursday to charges of helping a man who is in the country illegally evade U.S. immigration authorities seeking to arrest him in her courthouse.

Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan entered the plea during a brief arraignment in federal court. Magistrate Judge Stephen Dries scheduled a trial to begin July 21. Dugan’s lead attorney, Steven Biskupic, told the judge that he expects the trial to last a week.

Dugan, her lawyers and prosecutors left the hearing without speaking to reporters.

The accusations against Dugan

Dugan is charged with concealing an individual to prevent arrest and obstruction. Prosecutors say she escorted Eduardo Flores-Ruiz and his lawyer out of her courtroom through a back door on April 18 after learning that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were in the courthouse seeking to arrest him on suspicion of being in the country illegally. She could face up to six years in prison if convicted on both counts.

Her attorneys say she’s innocent. They filed a motion Wednesday to dismiss the case, saying she was acting in her official capacity as a judge and therefore is immune to prosecution. They also maintain that the federal government violated Wisconsin’s sovereignty by disrupting a state courtroom and prosecuting a state judge.

A public backlash

Dugan’s arrest has inflamed tensions between the Trump administration and Democrats over the president’s sweeping immigration crackdown.

Dozens of demonstrators gathered outside the courthouse ahead of Thursday’s hearing, with some holding signs that read, “Only Fascists Arrest Judges — Drop the Charges,” “Department of Justice Over-Reach” and “Keep Your Hands Off Our Judges!!” The crowd chanted “Due process rights,” “Hands off our freedom,” and “Sí se puede” — Spanish for “Yes, we can” — which is a rallying cry for immigrant rights advocates.

One man stood alone across the street holding a Trump flag.

Nancy Camden, from suburban Mequon north of Milwaukee, was among the protesters calling for the case to be dismissed. She said she believes ICE shouldn’t have tried to arrest Flores-Ruiz inside the courthouse and the Department of Justice “overreached” in charging Dugan.

“How they handled this and made a big show of arresting her and putting her in handcuffs, all of that was intimidation,” Camden said. “And I’m not going to be intimidated. I’m fighting back.”

Esther Cabrera, an organizer with the Milwaukee Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression, said the charges against Dugan amount to “state-funded repression.”

“If we are going to go after judges, if we’re going to go after mayors, we have to understand that they can come after anybody,” she said. “And that’s kind of why we wanted to make a presence out here today, is to say that you can’t come after everyone and it stops here.”

The case background

According to court documents, Flores-Ruiz illegally reentered the U.S. after being deported in 2013. Online court records show he was charged with three counts of misdemeanor domestic abuse in Milwaukee County in March, and he was in Dugan’s courtroom on April 18 for a hearing in that case.

According to an FBI affidavit, Dugan was alerted to the agents’ presence by her clerk, who was informed by an attorney that the agents appeared to be in the hallway. Dugan was visibly angry and called the situation “absurd” before leaving the bench and retreating to her chambers, the affidavit contends. She and another judge later approached members of the arrest team in the courthouse with what witnesses described as a “confrontational, angry demeanor.”

After a back-and-forth with the agents over the warrant for Flores-Ruiz, Dugan demanded they speak with the chief judge and led them from the courtroom, according to the affidavit.

After she returned to the courtroom, witnesses heard her say something to the effect of “wait, come with me” before ushering Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out through a door typically used only by deputies, jurors, court staff and in-custody defendants, the affidavit alleges. Flores-Ruiz was free on a signature bond in the abuse case, according to online state court records. Federal agents ultimately detained him outside the courthouse after a foot chase.

The state Supreme Court suspended Dugan last week, saying the move was necessary to preserve public confidence in the judiciary. She was freed after her arrest.

How the case might play out

John Vaudreuil, a former federal prosecutor in Wisconsin who isn’t involved in Dugan’s or Flores-Ruiz’s cases, said the Trump administration seems to want to make an example out of Dugan. U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi or Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche, rather than the U.S. attorney in Milwaukee, are likely making the decisions on how to proceed, making it less likely prosecutors will reduce the charges against Dugan in a deal, he said.

Her attorneys will likely try to push for a jury trial, Vaudreuil predicted, because they know that “people feel very strongly about the way the president and administration is conducting immigration policy.”

Dugan is represented by some of Wisconsin’s most accomplished lawyers. Biskupic was a federal prosecutor for 20 years and served seven years as U.S. attorney in Milwaukee. Paul Clement, meanwhile, is a former U.S. solicitor general who has argued more than 100 cases in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. Both were appointed to jobs by former Republican President George W. Bush.

Richmond writes for the Associated Press. AP reporters Scott Bauer in Madison, Wis., and Laura Bargfeld contributed to this report.

MADISON, Wis. — A federal grand jury indicted a Wisconsin judge Tuesday on charges she helped a man in the country illegally evade U.S. immigration authorities looking to arrest him as he appeared before her in a local domestic abuse case.

Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan’s arrest and ensuing indictment has escalated a clash between President Trump’s administration and local authorities over the Republican’s sweeping immigration crackdown. Democrats have accused the Trump administration of trying to make a national example of Dugan to chill judicial opposition to the crackdown.

Prosecutors charged Dugan in April via complaint with concealing an individual to prevent arrest and obstruction. In the federal criminal justice system, prosecutors can initiate charges against a defendant directly by filing a complaint or present evidence to a grand jury and let that body decide whether to issue charges.

A grand jury still reviews charges brought by complaint to determine whether enough probable cause exists to continue the case as a check on prosecutors’ power. If the grand jury determines there’s probable cause, it issues a written statement of the charges known as an indictment. That’s what happened in Dugan’s case.

Dugan faces up to six years in prison if she’s convicted on both counts. Her team of defense attorneys responded to the indictment with a one-sentence statement saying that she maintains her innocence and looks forward to being vindicated in court. She was scheduled to enter a plea on Thursday.

Kenneth Gales, a spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office in Milwaukee, declined to comment on the indictment Tuesday evening.

Dugan’s case is similar to one brought during the first Trump administration against a Massachusetts judge, who was accused of helping a man sneak out a courthouse back door to evade a waiting immigration enforcement agent. That case was eventually dismissed.

Prosecutors say Dugan escorted Eduardo Flores-Ruiz and his lawyer out of her courtroom through a back jury door on April 18 after learning that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were in the courthouse seeking his arrest.

According to court documents, Flores-Ruiz illegally reentered the U.S. after being deported in 2013. Online state court records show he was charged with three counts of misdemeanor domestic abuse in Milwaukee County in March. He was in Dugan’s courtroom that morning of April 18 for a hearing.

Court documents suggest Dugan was alerted to the agents’ presence by her clerk, who was informed by an attorney that the agents appeared to be in the hallway. An affidavit says Dugan was visibly angry over the agents’ arrival and called the situation “absurd” before leaving the bench and retreating to her chambers. She and another judge later approached members of the arrest team in the courthouse with what witnesses described as a “confrontational, angry demeanor.”

After a back-and-forth with the agents over the warrant for Flores-Ruiz, Dugan demanded they speak with the chief judge and led them away from the courtroom, according to the affidavit.

She then returned to the courtroom and was heard saying words to the effect of “wait, come with me” and ushered Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out through a back jury door typically used only by deputies, jurors, court staff and in-custody defendants, according to the affidavit. Flores-Ruiz was free on a signature bond in the abuse case at the time, according to online state court records.

Federal agents ultimately captured him outside the courthouse after a foot chase.

The state Supreme Court suspended Dugan from the bench in late April, saying the move was necessary to preserve public confidence in the judiciary. A reserve judge is filling in for her.

Richmond writes for the Associated Press.

May 13 (UPI) — A federal grand jury in Wisconsin has indicted Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan, whose arrest last month on allegations of helping a migrant evade federal arrest prompted dozens of legal professionals to accuse the Trump administration of trying to intimidate the judiciary.

Dugan was charged in a two-count indictment on Tuesday.

The court document accuses her of knowingly concealing a person whose arrest warrant had been issued in order to prevent their apprehension, and corruptly endeavoring to influence, obstruct and impede the administration of law enforcement.

UPI has contacted her legal representation for comment.

FBI agents arrested Dugan on April 25 for allegedly misdirecting federal agents to allow Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an undocumented migrant, to evade arrest earlier that month.

According to the affidavit supporting her arrest, Dugan was presiding over an April 18 hearing involving Flores-Ruiz in a domestic abuse case when agents arrived to arrest him over his immigration status.

After confronting federal agents in the court’s hallway, she is accused of escorting Flores-Ruiz and his counsel out of her courtroom.

Flores-Ruiz was able to leave the courthouse, but then led federal agents on a foot chase before being taken into immigration enforcement custody.

The development comes amid the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration.

During the increased law enforcement targeting of undocumented immigrants, the Trump administration rescinded a Biden administration policy prohibiting immigration enforcement action in or near courthouses.

While the previous administration said such arrests hindered the administration of justice, the current administration has argued that the policy “emboldened criminal illegal aliens” and being able to make arrests at courthouses “is common sense.”

The arrest of Dugan was met with swift condemnation from those in the legal profession, who viewed it as another Trump administration attack on the judiciary.

More than 140 retired state and federal judges sent Attorney General Pam Bondi a letter earlier this month condemning what they described as attacks against judges who do not rule in the Trump administration’s favor.

“The intent to intimidate Judge Dugan and the judiciary is clear from the circumstances of Judge Dugan’s arrest,” the group said.

“The circumstances of Judge Dugan’s arrest make it clear that it was nothing but an effort to threaten and intimidate the state and federal judiciaries into submitting to the Administration, instead of interpreting the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

Dugan has been temporarily removed from her duties by the Wisconsin Supreme Court following her arrest.