Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, AGENCY NEWS—Ethics experts: AG, FBI director violated rules in comments about judge’s arrest, (May 8, 2025)

By Jonathan Anderson

A bipartisan coalition of former judges also accused the Trump administration of attempting to intimidate the judiciary and undermine the rule of law.

Ethics experts and former judges are raising alarm after federal authorities arrested a sitting Wisconsin judge for allegedly helping an undocumented immigrant evade detention by immigration officers. Public interest groups asked the Justice Department’s inspector general to investigate whether the attorney general and FBI director violated federal regulations and policies in commenting about the case. Separately, more than 150 former judges wrote a letter to the attorney general accusing the Trump administration of trying to intimidate the judiciary and undermine the rule of law.

Background. On April 25, 2025, FBI agents arrested Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan at the Milwaukee County Courthouse in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. A criminal complaint charged Dugan with “obstructing or impeding a proceeding before a department or agency of the United States” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1505 and “concealing an individual to prevent his discovery and arrest” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1071. Prosecutors allege that on April 18, Dugan directed an undocumented immigrant appearing before her in a criminal case to a private area of the courthouse following a hearing. This occurred after immigration authorities presented Dugan with an administrative warrant for the undocumented individual.

Ethics probe sought. In a letter to the U.S. Justice Department’s inspector general (IG), advocacy groups State Democracy Defenders Fund (SDDF) and Public Citizen sought an investigation into whether FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi violated federal regulations and media policies in their public disclosures and comments about the case.

Patel published a post on the social media platform X, formerly Twitter, announcing Dugan’s arrest. Patel subsequently deleted the post and then published the same message again hours later. Patel published another X post that included a photograph showing Dugan in handcuffs. Bondi appeared on Fox News at least twice following Dugan’s arrest and made multiple statements about the case.

Regulations and policy. The letter cited various regulations constraining the DOJ from disclosing certain information about pending criminal matters. Among these regulations, the letter cited 28 C.F.R. § 50.2(b)(2), which states: “At no time shall personnel of the Department of Justice furnish any statement or information for the purpose of influencing the outcome of a defendant's trial, nor shall personnel of the Department furnish any statement or information, which could reasonably be expected to be disseminated by means of public communication, if such a statement or information may reasonably be expected to influence the outcome of a pending or future trial.”

The letter also cited 28 C.F.R. § 50.2(b)(3), which in part provides that “[d]isclosures should include only incontrovertible, factual matters, and should not include subjective observations. In addition, where background information or information relating to the circumstances of an arrest or investigation would be highly prejudicial or where the release thereof would serve no law enforcement function, such information should not be made public.”

The letter further cited DOJ’s Confidentiality and Media Contacts Policy in the U.S. Justice Manual. This policy, according to the letter, requires DOJ personnel to “refrain from disclosing the following, except as appropriate in the proceeding or in an announcement after a finding of guilt: Observations about a defendant’s or party’s character;... Statements concerning anticipated evidence or argument in the case; and Any opinion as to the defendant’s guilt, or the possibility of a plea of guilty to the offense charged, or the possibility of a plea to a lesser offense.”

DOJ policy further admonishes personnel to “not encourage or assist news media in photographing or televising a person held in custody. DOJ personnel should not voluntarily disclose a photograph of a defendant unless it serves a law enforcement function or unless the photograph is already part of the public record in the case.”

The policy also requires DOJ personnel to include a disclaimer in news releases about criminal matters before a finding of guilty that the “charge is merely an accusation, and the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty,” according to the letter.

Alleged violations.. The advocacy groups’ letter alleged that Patel’s social media posts, in particular the post with a photo of Dugan in handcuffs, “not only appears to violate DOJ’s media policy on use of photographs, but seems designed to inflame rather than convey an impartial and accurate accounting of the facts and charges.” The letter further alleged that Bondi’s comments went “well beyond the type of ‘incontrovertible, factual matters’ permitted under DOJ regulation and policy.”

The letter also alleged that Patel and Bondi did not provide “a meaningful disclaimer to make it abundantly clear that the charges being brought against Judge Dugan are mere accusations that have yet to be proved in a court of law.” Nor did Patel and Bondi “make clear that Judge Dugan is presumed innocent until proven guilty,” according to the letter.

Former judges condemn arrest. Separately, more than 150 former state and federal judges sent a letter to Bondi condemning the Trump administration for what the letter described as “attacks on the judiciary,” including the arrest of Dugan. The letter was signed by judges appointed by both Republicans and Democrats.

The letter argued that Dugan’s arrest is part of an effort by the administration to intimidate judges, noting that the arrest occurred seven days after the alleged offense and that there was no emergency necessitating the arrest. Rather, the administration could have issued a summons for Dugan to appear before a court, as is typically the case in such circumstances. The letter also cited the DOJ’s Confidentiality and Media Contacts policy.

“This cynical effort undermines the rule of law and destroys the trust the American people have in the nation’s judges to administer justice in the courtrooms and in the halls of justice across the land,” the letter reads.

News: AgencyNews PublicEmployees