“Nobody Is Above the Law”: Trump Border Czar Tom Homan’s Warning Following Judges’ Arrests for Aiding Illegal Immigrants

In a stark message that has reverberated through both legal and political circles, President Donald Trump’s border czar Tom Homan delivered a pointed warning following the arrests of two judges accused of aiding illegal immigrants: no one, regardless of their position, is exempt from the law. These high-profile arrests have spotlighted growing tensions between federal immigration enforcement policies and those who actively oppose them, creating a complex legal and ethical landscape that extends far beyond the courtroom. This comprehensive analysis examines the recent judicial arrests, Homan’s response, and the broader implications for immigration enforcement in America.

The Judicial Arrests That Shocked the Nation

The American legal community was stunned when news broke of two judges—both Democrats—being arrested on charges related to assisting illegal immigrants evade federal authorities. These cases, occurring in Wisconsin and New Mexico, represent an extraordinary development in the ongoing immigration debate, as they involve members of the judiciary allegedly using their positions to obstruct federal law enforcement.

Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan

In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, County Judge Hannah Dugan, 65, was arrested Friday morning and charged with two felonies after allegedly helping an undocumented immigrant escape federal immigration officials. According to court documents, the incident occurred on April 18 when Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an undocumented Mexican immigrant facing three misdemeanor battery counts, appeared in Dugan’s courtroom for a pretrial conference.

The criminal complaint against Judge Dugan details how she allegedly assisted Flores-Ruiz in avoiding arrest by federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents who were waiting to take him into custody at the Milwaukee County Courthouse. Rather than following standard procedure, Dugan allegedly took extraordinary steps to help Flores-Ruiz evade the waiting agents.

FBI Director Kash Patel publicly addressed the arrest on social media, stating: “Just NOW, the FBI arrested Judge Hannah Dugan out of Milwaukee, Wisconsin on charges of obstruction — after evidence of Judge Dugan obstructing an immigration arrest operation last week.” Patel further explained, “We believe Judge Dugan intentionally misdirected federal agents away from the subject to be arrested in her courthouse, Eduardo Flores Ruiz, allowing the subject — an illegal alien— to evade arrest.”

According to Attorney General Pam Bondi, who provided additional details in an interview with Fox News, the incident began when Judge Dugan became visibly agitated upon learning ICE agents were present to arrest Flores-Ruiz.

“The judge screams at the immigration officers. She’s furious. Visibly shaken. Upset. Sends them off to talk to the chief judge,” Bondi recounted. “She comes back in the courtroom — you’re not going to believe this — takes the defendant and the defense attorney back in her chambers. Takes them out a private exit and tells them to leave, while a state prosecutor and victims of domestic violence are sitting in the courtroom. Can’t make this up.”

Despite Judge Dugan’s alleged intervention, federal agents ultimately apprehended Flores-Ruiz outside the courthouse after a pursuit, intercepting him at West State Street and North 10th Street in downtown Milwaukee. This successful apprehension provided crucial evidence for the obstruction charges now facing the judge.

New Mexico Judge Joel Cano

In an equally shocking case from New Mexico, now-former Judge Joel Cano and his wife were arrested on charges related to harboring an illegal immigrant allegedly connected to the Venezuelan-based Tren de Aragua gang—which the Trump administration has officially designated as a terrorist organization alongside MS-13.

The allegations against the Canos extend beyond merely providing shelter to an illegal immigrant. According to reports, they are also accused of providing firearms to the suspect. This claim is supported by photographs discovered in their possession that apparently show the illegal immigrant with weapons.

The implications of this case are particularly serious given the alleged connection to Tren de Aragua, a transnational criminal organization that has expanded its influence from Venezuelan prisons to multiple countries across Latin America and now into the United States. The group is known for involvement in extortion, kidnapping, human trafficking, and drug distribution.

Judge Cano has since resigned from his position, a move that underscores the gravity of the charges against him. The case represents not just an alleged violation of immigration law but potentially aiding individuals connected to organizations officially designated as terrorists by the U.S. government.

Tom Homan’s Unequivocal Warning

Against the backdrop of these arrests, Tom Homan, who serves as President Trump’s border czar, delivered a clear and unambiguous message to anyone who might consider interfering with federal immigration enforcement efforts. Homan’s statement, posted on social media platform X, emphasized that actively impeding immigration enforcement constitutes a serious federal offense.

“Nobody should be surprised by the arrest of two judges,” Homan declared. “I have said many times within the past few months, that people can choose to support illegal immigration and not assist ICE in removing criminal illegal aliens from our communities, BUT DON’T CROSS THAT LINE.”

Homan continued with an explicit warning: “If you actively impede our enforcement efforts or if you knowingly harbor or conceal illegal aliens from ICE you will be prosecuted. These actions are felonies. More to come…”

This statement from Homan draws a significant distinction between those who may disagree with current immigration policies and those who actively take steps to obstruct federal law enforcement. In essence, Homan acknowledges that people may have differing views on immigration policy, but emphasizes that actively interfering with the enforcement of existing laws crosses into criminal territory.

The phrase “More to come…” carries particular weight, suggesting that these arrests may represent just the beginning of a broader effort to address active obstruction of immigration enforcement, regardless of the position or authority of those involved.

Legal Framework: Understanding the Charges

The charges brought against Judges Dugan and Cano fall under specific federal statutes designed to prevent interference with law enforcement and the harboring of illegal immigrants. Understanding these laws provides context for the seriousness of the allegations.

Obstruction of Justice

Judge Dugan faces obstruction charges, which generally involve deliberately impeding, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding. Under federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 1505, anyone who “corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede… the due and proper administration of the law” can face significant penalties, including imprisonment.

The application of obstruction charges to a sitting judge represents an extraordinary step, as judges are typically seen as facilitators of justice rather than obstructers. The allegations that Judge Dugan not only misdirected federal agents but actively helped a defendant evade arrest by providing an alternative exit route from her chambers goes beyond mere disagreement with immigration policy to active interference with law enforcement.

Harboring Illegal Immigrants

In the case of Judge Cano and his wife, the charges appear to focus on harboring an illegal immigrant, which is prohibited under 8 U.S.C. § 1324. This statute makes it a federal crime to “conceal, harbor, or shield from detection” any alien who has entered or remains in the United States in violation of law.

The statute specifically addresses those who, “knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection… such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.”

The additional allegations regarding providing firearms to an illegal immigrant potentially implicate other federal laws, including those prohibiting the transfer of firearms to individuals not legally present in the United States.

Broader Implications for Judicial Independence and Immigration Enforcement

These arrests raise profound questions about the intersection of judicial independence, federal law enforcement, and immigration policy. They highlight tensions between different levels of government and between competing values in the American legal system.

Judicial Ethics and Federal Law

Judges in the United States are bound by both judicial ethics and federal law. While judicial independence is a cornerstone of the American legal system, this independence does not extend to actively obstructing federal law enforcement or violating federal criminal statutes.

Canon 1 of the Model Code of Judicial Conduct states that a judge “shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.” Canon 2 requires that a judge “shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently.”

The allegations against Judges Dugan and Cano, if proven, would represent clear violations of these ethical principles. More importantly, they would constitute criminal violations that transcend questions of judicial ethics and enter the realm of federal criminal law.

“Sanctuary” Policies vs. Federal Enforcement

These cases occur against the backdrop of ongoing tensions between so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions and federal immigration authorities. Many states and localities have adopted policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, citing concerns about community trust, resource allocation, and local autonomy.

However, as Homan’s statement emphasizes, there is a significant legal distinction between jurisdictions that decline to actively assist federal immigration enforcement and those that actively impede such enforcement. While the former may create challenges for federal authorities, the latter potentially crosses into criminal territory.

The arrests of Judges Dugan and Cano may signal a more aggressive approach to addressing active obstruction of immigration enforcement, particularly in cases involving criminal defendants. This approach aligns with the Trump administration’s broader emphasis on enforcing existing immigration laws and removing individuals who have entered the country illegally, especially those with criminal records.

Judicial Challenges to Immigration Enforcement

The article notes that “Several federal judges, most of them appointed by Democratic presidents, have issued rulings blocking the Trump administration from essentially enforcing existing immigration laws. Most of those cases are either on appeal or headed to the Supreme Court.”

This observation highlights another dimension of the tension between the judiciary and immigration enforcement: the use of legal challenges and judicial review to constrain executive action on immigration. These challenges typically involve questions about the scope of executive authority, constitutional protections for immigrants, and compliance with administrative law requirements.

However, there is a crucial distinction between judges issuing rulings based on their interpretation of the law—which may be overturned on appeal but represent legitimate judicial activity—and judges actively taking steps outside their judicial role to obstruct enforcement. The former represents the normal functioning of judicial review in our constitutional system, while the latter, if proven, would constitute criminal conduct.

Photos of Judge Hannah Dugan’s arrest by the FBI today at the Milwaukee County Courthouse. Now charged with 2 felonies-obstructing a U.S. agency & concealing an individual to stop an arrest. Both carry a max penalty of 6 years and a $350K fine. ⁦@FBI⁩ ⁦@PamBondi⁩ pic.twitter.com/MzhQkPAji1

— Elizabeth MacDonald (@LizMacDonaldFOX) April 25, 2025

Political and Public Reaction

The arrests of two Democratic judges on charges related to assisting illegal immigrants have generated significant political reaction, particularly given the centrality of immigration to current political debates. Responses have largely fallen along partisan lines, with supporters of stricter immigration enforcement viewing the arrests as necessary accountability and critics expressing concerns about potential overreach or politicization of law enforcement.

For supporters of the Trump administration’s immigration policies, these arrests represent evidence that resistance to immigration enforcement has gone beyond legitimate policy disagreement to potentially criminal conduct. They view the actions taken by Homan and federal law enforcement as appropriate responses to serious violations of law.

Critics, meanwhile, have raised questions about whether these arrests represent targeted enforcement against political opponents or an attempt to intimidate judges who may be sympathetic to immigrants. Some have expressed concern about potential impacts on judicial independence and the willingness of judges to make decisions that might be unpopular with the executive branch.

Historical Context and Precedent

The arrest of sitting judges for allegedly assisting individuals in evading federal immigration authorities represents an unusual and rare development in American legal history. While there have been cases of judicial misconduct leading to criminal charges—typically involving corruption, bribery, or abuse of power—cases directly involving obstruction of federal immigration enforcement by judges are exceedingly rare.

This rarity underscores the exceptional nature of these cases and raises questions about whether they represent isolated incidents or symptoms of deeper conflicts within the American legal system regarding immigration enforcement. The answer to this question may emerge as these cases proceed through the legal system and as the Trump administration continues its immigration enforcement efforts.

Looking Ahead: Potential Impacts and Developments

As these cases move forward, several potential impacts and developments bear watching:

Legal Proceedings and Due Process

Both Judge Dugan and former Judge Cano are entitled to due process and the presumption of innocence. Their cases will proceed through the federal court system, where the government will need to prove its allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. The outcome of these cases may establish important precedents regarding the intersection of judicial authority and federal immigration enforcement.

Potential Chilling Effect on Judicial Independence

Some legal observers have expressed concern that these arrests could have a chilling effect on judicial independence, particularly in immigration-related cases. Judges might fear that rulings perceived as unfavorable to immigration enforcement could lead to scrutiny or even criminal investigation. How the legal community navigates this concern while recognizing legitimate boundaries on judicial conduct will be an important development to watch.

Nobody should be surprised by the arrest of two judges. I have said many times within the past few months, that people can choose to support illegal immigration and not assist ICE in removing criminal illegal aliens from our communities, BUT DON’T CROSS THAT LINE. If you…

— Thomas D. Homan (@RealTomHoman) April 25, 2025

Policy Responses from State and Local Governments

States and localities with “sanctuary” policies may need to reassess and potentially clarify the boundaries of these policies in light of these arrests. There is a significant difference between declining to actively assist federal immigration enforcement and taking affirmative steps to obstruct such enforcement, and these cases may prompt a reexamination of where that line is drawn.

Further Enforcement Actions

Homan’s statement that “More to come…” suggests that these arrests may represent the beginning of a broader enforcement effort targeting those who actively obstruct immigration enforcement. Whether this leads to additional high-profile arrests or investigations remains to be seen, but the possibility has clearly been signaled.

Conclusion: A Watershed Moment in Immigration Enforcement

The arrests of Judges Dugan and Cano, and Tom Homan’s subsequent warning, represent a significant moment in the ongoing national debate over immigration enforcement. These cases highlight the tension between different levels of government, between competing values in the legal system, and between differing visions of America’s immigration policies.

What seems clear from Homan’s statement is that the Trump administration is drawing a firm line between those who disagree with its immigration policies and those who actively obstruct enforcement of existing laws. While people may legitimately hold different views on immigration policy, Homan’s message emphasizes that actively impeding federal law enforcement crosses into territory where criminal prosecution may follow—regardless of one’s position or authority.

As these cases proceed through the legal system, they will likely continue to generate intense debate and scrutiny. The outcomes may help define the boundaries of judicial conduct, the relationship between federal immigration authorities and local officials, and the consequences for those who move beyond policy disagreement to active obstruction.

In the meantime, Homan’s warning stands as a clear statement of the administration’s position: “Nobody should be surprised by the arrest of two judges… If you actively impede our enforcement efforts or if you knowingly harbor or conceal illegal aliens from ICE you will be prosecuted. These actions are felonies. More to come…”