A prosecutor told jurors on Dec. 15 that a Wisconsin judge said she would “take the heat” for directing an immigrant to dash through a private courtroom door while federal agents were trying to arrest him. Opening remarks by Assistant U.S. Attorney Keith Alexander kicked off an extraordinary trial for a public official. Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan is charged with obstruction and concealment for her actions this spring during President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown. The trial in federal court in Milwaukee will center on what happened when Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, 31, reported to the county courthouse in April for a hearing on a state crime. Authorities say Dugan led him out through a back door that led to a public corridor after she told immigration agents to speak with the chief judge about trying to arrest people at the courthouse. “They did not expect a judge, sworn to uphold the law, would divide their arrest team and impede their efforts to do their jobs,” Alexander told the jury. He said Dugan informed her court reporter that she “would take the heat” for helping Flores-Ruiz. The government's case is expected to run through at least Thursday, with roughly two dozen witnesses lined up to testify. Dugan faces up to six years in prison if convicted on both counts. She has argued that she was following courthouse protocols on immigration arrests and wasn’t trying to disrupt agents. Her lawyer says Chief Judge Carl Ashley had sent out a draft policy that barred immigration agents from executing certain warrants in nonpublic areas and required court personnel to refer agents to a supervisor. Agents followed Flores-Ruiz outside the building and arrested him after a foot chase. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced in November that he had been deported after he pleaded no contest in the local battery case and was sentenced to time served. Ahead of the trial, U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman declined to dismiss the charges, saying there was no firmly established immunity for Dugan. Democrats say Trump is looking to make an example of Dugan to blunt judicial opposition to immigration arrests. Dugan told police she and her family found threatening flyers at their homes this spring. The administration has branded her an activist judge. Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, a fierce Trump loyalist running for Wisconsin governor next year, urged authorities to “lock her up” in a recent tweet.

President Donald Trump was sued on Friday by preservationists asking a federal court to halt his White House ballroom project until it goes through multiple independent reviews and wins approval from Congress. The National Trust for Historic Preservation is asking the U.S. District Court to block Trump’s White House ballroom project, which already has involved razing the East Wing, until it goes through comprehensive design reviews, environmental assessments, public comments and congressional debate and ratification. The National Trust, a privately funded organization, argues that Trump, by fast-tracking the project, has committed multiple violations of the Administrative Procedures Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, while also exceeding his constitutional authority by not seeking congressional approval for a project of such scale. “No president is legally allowed to tear down portions of the White House without any review whatsoever — not President Trump, not President Biden, and not anyone else,” the lawsuit states. “And no president is legally allowed to construct a ballroom on public property without giving the public the opportunity to weigh in.” No more work should be done, the Trust argues, until administration officials “complete the required reviews — reviews that should have taken place before the Defendants demolished the East Wing, and before they began construction of the Ballroom — and secure the necessary approvals.” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt did not immediately respond to Associated Press questions about the lawsuit and the project, including whether the president had any intention of consulting Congress. Trump has emphasized since announcing his plans that he’s doing it with private funding, including his own money. But that would not necessarily change how federal laws and procedures apply to what is still a U.S. government project. Trump, a Republican, already has bypassed the federal government’s usual building practices and historical reviews with the East Wing demolition. He recently added another architectural firm for a ballroom that itself would be nearly twice the size of the White House before the East Wing’s demolition. Trump has said a ballroom is overdue for the White House, previously complaining that events were held outside under a tent because the East Room and the State Dining Room could not accommodate bigger crowds. Trump, among other complaints, said guests get their feet wet if it rains during such events. The White House is expected to submit plans for Trump’s new ballroom to a federal planning commission before the year ends, about three months after construction began. Will Scharf, who was named by Trump as chairman of the National Capital Planning Commission, said at the panel’s monthly meeting last week that he was told by colleagues at the White House that the long-awaited plans would be filed in December. “Once plans are submitted, that’s really when the role of this commission, and its professional staff, will begin,” said Scharf, who also is one of the Republican president’s top White House aides. He said the review process would happen at a “normal and deliberative pace.”

A federal judge in Maryland ordered Kilmar Abrego Garcia freed from immigration detention on Thursday while his legal challenge against his deportation moves forward, handing a major victory to the immigrant whose wrongful deportation to a notorious prison in El Salvador made him a flashpoint in the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ruled that Immigration and Customs Enforcement must let Abrego Garcia go immediately. “Since Abrego Garcia’s return from wrongful detention in El Salvador, he has been re-detained, again without lawful authority,” the judge wrote. “For this reason, the Court will GRANT Abrego Garcia’s Petition for immediate release from ICE custody.” The Department of Homeland Security was highly critical of the release order and vowed to oppose it, calling it “naked judicial activism” by a judge appointed by President Barack Obama, a Democrat. "This order lacks any valid legal basis, and we will continue to fight this tooth and nail in the courts,” said Tricia McLaughlin, the department’s assistant secretary. Messages seeking comment were left with Abrego Garcia’s attorney Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg. The Department of Justice declined to comment on the order. Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national, has an American wife and child and has lived in Maryland for years, but he originally immigrated to the U.S. illegally as a teenager. An immigration judge in 2019 ruled Abrego Garcia could not be deported to El Salvador because he faced danger from a gang that targeted his family. When Abrego Garcia was mistakenly deported there in March, his case became a rallying point for those who oppose President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown. Abrego Garcia was returned to the U.S. under a court order. Since he cannot be deported to El Salvador, ICE has been seeking to deport him to a series of African countries. His lawsuit in federal court claims Trump's Republican administration is illegally using the deportation process to punish Abrego Garcia over the embarrassment of his mistaken deportation to El Salvador. In her order releasing Abrego Garcia, Xinis wrote that federal authorities “did not just stonewall” the court, “They affirmatively misled the tribunal.” The reference was made to the successive list of four African countries that officials had sought to remove Abrego Garcia to and submitted affirmations that Costa Rica had rescinded its offer to accept him — later determined to be untrue. “But Costa Rica had never wavered in its commitment to receive Abrego Garcia, just as Abrego Garcia never wavered in his commitment to resettle there,” the judge wrote. Xinis also dismissed the federal government's arguments that the court did not have jurisdiction to rule on a final order of removal, noting that order had not been filed. “Thus, Abrego Garcia’s request for immediate release cannot touch upon the execution of a removal order if no such order exists,” she wrote. Meanwhile, in a separate action in immigration court, Abrego Garcia is petitioning to reopen his immigration case to seek asylum in the United States. Additionally, Abrego Garcia is facing criminal charges in federal court in Tennessee, where he has pleaded not guilty to human smuggling. He has filed a motion to dismiss the charges, claiming the prosecution is vindictive. His defense attorney in the Tennessee case, Sean Hecker, declined to comment. A judge in that case has ordered an evidentiary hearing to be held on the motion after previously finding some evidence that the prosecution against Abrego Garcia “may be vindictive.” The judge said many statements by Trump administration officials “raise cause for concern.” The judge specifically cited a statement by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche that seemed to suggest the Justice Department charged Abrego Garcia because he won his wrongful deportation case.