Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan Convicted of Obstruction in ICE Arrest Case

By Brian Allen

A federal jury on Thursday found Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan guilty of a felony count of obstructing an official federal proceeding for actions she took in April that aided a defendant facing deportation, according to multiple news reports. She was acquitted on a related misdemeanor charge of concealing an individual to prevent arrest.

The verdict caps a high-profile case that brought rare criminal scrutiny to the actions of a sitting state judge as federal immigration enforcement intensified under President Trump’s second administration.

What happened

The charges stem from an incident on April 18, 2025, when federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents waited outside Dugan’s courtroom to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican national in the U.S. without authorization who was in court on a misdemeanor battery charge.

Prosecutors presented evidence showing that:

• Dugan directed ICE agents away from her courtroom by sending them to the chief judge’s office, delaying their presence and reducing the chance they would arrest Flores-Ruiz.

• Courtroom audio and surveillance video showed Dugan then expedited Flores-Ruiz’s case and escorted him and his attorney out a private door, away from the waiting agents.

• During the incident, prosecutors said Dugan was heard telling her court reporter, “I’ll take the heat” for her actions, indicating an awareness of potential consequences.

Flores-Ruiz fled briefly but was later arrested following a foot pursuit and has since been deported after pleading guilty to illegal reentry.

The charges and verdict

Dugan faced a two-count federal indictment:

1. Obstruction of an official proceeding — a felony for interfering with a Department of Homeland Security removal proceeding.

2. Concealing an individual to prevent his discovery or arrest — a related misdemeanor charge.

On Thursday, the jury returned a mixed verdict:

• Guilty on the felony obstruction charge, meaning jurors found that Dugan unlawfully interfered with federal agents carrying out their duty.

• Not guilty on the misdemeanor concealment charge, indicating disagreement or insufficient evidence on that specific allegation.

The felony conviction carries a potential prison sentence of up to five years, though sentencing will occur at a later date.

Defense position and courtroom dispute

Dugan’s defense team acknowledged her dissatisfaction with the way immigration enforcement was conducted in court settings but insisted that her actions were consistent with courthouse policy and did not reflect criminal intent.

Defense attorneys argued that she was trying to follow guidance about how federal agents should interact with local courts, and that any confusion at the courthouse was due to unclear procedures or miscommunication, not unlawful obstruction. They maintained she did not intend to help Flores-Ruiz evade arrest.

Why this case drew national attention

Criminal prosecution of a sitting judge is extraordinarily rare. The Dugan case quickly drew national scrutiny for several reasons:

1. It placed a judge at the center of federal immigration enforcement tension. Other jurisdictions have long restricted local cooperation with federal immigration authorities, citing sanctuary policies or concerns over community trust. Dugan’s actions — and subsequent prosecution — became a flashpoint in those broader debates.

2. Local and national reactions split sharply along political lines.

Some Democrats, civil liberties advocates, and legal scholars expressed concern that Dugan’s arrest could have a chilling effect on judges and local officials who resist federal immigration enforcement. They argued it could deter judicial independence or conflict with local policy preferences.

Others, including federal prosecutors and Republicans, portrayed the case as a necessary enforcement of the law, particularly in a context where immigration authorities are asserting broader powers under the Trump administration. They argued that interfering with a lawful federal arrest — even inside a local courtroom — is prosecutable.

3. Comparisons to past cases added weight. In 2019, federal prosecutors in Massachusetts pursued charges against a state court judge and court officer accused of helping a defendant evade federal immigration authorities; that case ultimately ended with obstruction charges dropped for lack of prosecution.

Broader implications for court-federal relations

The case highlights a broader fault line between local judicial autonomy and federal enforcement authority. Judges typically exercise discretion over courtroom procedures, but they are not immune from federal law when their actions conflict with statutory duties.

Under long-established legal principles, judges enjoy judicial immunity for acts taken in their official capacity. Dugan’s defense argued that this immunity should protect her actions, but the federal judge overseeing the case — U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman — denied those claims in pretrial proceedings, ruling that her conduct “went well beyond her judicial role.”

Political context and enforcement strategy

The prosecution took place against the backdrop of an aggressive ICE enforcement strategy under the Trump administration, which has placed heightened emphasis on arresting and deporting unauthorized immigrants, including inside courthouse settings.

Federal prosecutors have repeatedly stressed that courtrooms are not exempt from federal authority when properly executed warrants are present, and that failure to comply with lawful requests by federal agents can constitute obstruction of justice.

Critics of the case argue that it could discourage judges from exercising independent judgment when confronted with federal enforcement actions, potentially chilling judicial discretion. Supporters of the prosecution counter that compliance with federal law is not optional, even for judges, and that the rule of law demands accountability when officials step outside their authority.

What happens next

Dugan remains suspended from her duties. The Wisconsin Supreme Court removed her from the bench pending the outcome of the trial last spring, and she has not returned to the judiciary during the proceedings.

Her defense team has already signaled plans to appeal and pursue further legal avenues to clear her name, framing the conviction as an overreach by federal authorities. They contend that ambiguities in courthouse procedures and communication protocols should not be criminalized.

Federal sentencing has not yet been scheduled.

Bottom line

Judge Hannah Dugan’s felony conviction for obstruction in the context of a federal immigration arrest is a rare legal outcome with significant implications. It underscores ongoing tensions between local judicial discretion and federal enforcement authority, especially in highly charged policy areas such as immigration.

Whether this case ultimately strengthens federal power to prosecute non-federal officials for interference, or whether it will reshape future interactions between state courts and federal agents, will depend on both legal appeals and the broader political climate around immigration enforcement.