In a remarkable and highly controversial federal case that has drawn national attention and fierce debate over judicial conduct, immigration enforcement, and political polarization, a federal jury in Milwaukee has found Judge Hannah Dugan guilty of felony obstruction for her actions that allegedly helped an undocumented immigrant avoid arrest by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents inside the courthouse where she presided. The verdict, returned on December 18, 2025, has ignited fierce reactions across the political spectrum and reinforced disputes over the rule of law, judicial independence, and immigration enforcement in the United States.
After deliberating for roughly six hours, the jury convicted Dugan on one count of obstruction of justice—a felony that could carry a prison sentence of up to five years—but acquitted her on a related misdemeanor charge of concealing a person to prevent arrest. While the sentencing date has not yet been scheduled, legal analysts predict a heated period of appeals and political fallout in the months ahead.
The Incident That Sparked a Federal Case
The chain of events that culminated in Dugan’s indictment began on April 18, 2025, when federal immigration agents entered the Milwaukee County Courthouse intending to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican national who was in the United States without legal immigration status and wanted by federal authorities. Flores-Ruiz was in state custody on unrelated misdemeanor domestic violence charges and was set to appear in Dugan’s courtroom when ICE agents arrived.
According to prosecution allegations and court filings, upon learning of the presence of ICE agents in the courthouse, Dugan became visibly agitated and took a series of extraordinary actions—including confronting federal agents, questioning the validity of their warrant, and ultimately directing Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out of her courtroom through a non-public back door typically reserved for jurors, court staff, and deputies.
Video surveillance footage and witness testimony presented at trial allegedly showed Dugan ushering Flores-Ruiz away from the ICE officers. Prosecutors argued that these actions effectively facilitated a temporary escape from immigration enforcement, even though Flores-Ruiz was eventually apprehended outside the courthouse after a brief foot pursuit.
Charges Against Judge Dugan
In May 2025, a federal grand jury indicted Dugan on two federal charges:
- Concealing a Person to Prevent Arrest – a misdemeanor alleging that Dugan knowingly hid Flores-Ruiz from federal authorities; and
- Obstruction of an Official Proceeding – a felony alleging that Dugan corruptly influenced, impeded, or interfered with an official federal law enforcement action by misleading ICE agents and facilitating Flores-Ruiz’s temporary elusion of arrest.
Dugan pleaded not guilty to both charges and maintained her innocence. Her defense attorney argued that she was acting within the scope of her judicial duties and following courthouse protocols regarding how immigration agents should be handled in court buildings. They further argued that judges have judicial immunity for actions taken in their official capacity and that applying criminal prosecution to a sitting judge risked infringing on judicial independence.
Federal prosecutors and the Department of Justice countered that no one—including judges—is above the law, and that interference with a lawful federal enforcement action, even from within a courtroom, constitutes serious criminal conduct.
Dugan’s Background and Career
Hannah Dugan had served as a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge since her election in 2016. A former leader at Catholic Charities and an attorney with the Legal Aid Society early in her career, Dugan’s path to the bench had been marked by commitments to equitable justice and community service, making her eventual prosecution especially controversial among some civil liberties advocates.
Her arrest by the FBI in late April 2025 was unprecedented in recent memory and drew intense scrutiny. The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended her from the bench shortly after her arrest, citing the need to maintain public confidence in the judiciary during the criminal proceedings.
The Trial Unfolds
The federal trial opened on December 15, 2025, before U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman. In his opening statement, the prosecutor depicted Dugan’s actions as a deliberate attempt to thwart a lawful ICE operation and protect an undocumented immigrant from arrest. The prosecution presented evidence including video footage, testimony from federal agents, and witness accounts that described Dugan as assertively directing the course of events in a way that disrupted the ICE agents’ efforts.
The defense painted a different picture. Dugan’s attorneys argued that she was following an internal policy governing the referral of federal immigration agents to the chief judge’s office and that any misdirection of agents was rooted in confusion and miscommunication—not criminal intent. They also contended that the excessive focus on her conduct was politically motivated, part of a broader enforcement agenda under former President Donald Trump’s administration.
Judge Kristela Cervera, a fellow Wisconsin judge who testified during the trial, expressed astonishment at Dugan’s handling of the situation, describing the confrontation with the ICE agents as both unorthodox and potentially dangerous to court personnel and the public.
National and Political Reactions
The guilty verdict has sparked immense debate nationwide. Supporters of strict immigration enforcement and advocates for the rule of law have welcomed the outcome, arguing that even judges must be held accountable if they seek to undermine lawful federal actions. Federal attorneys, including the Deputy Attorney General, praised the jury’s decision and reiterated that obstructing justice cannot be condoned, regardless of the offender’s position.
Conversely, civil liberties groups, immigrant advocacy organizations, and some legal scholars have expressed concern that the prosecution represents an overreach and could set a disturbing precedent. Critics argue that criminalizing a judge’s courtroom decision—especially in a context involving ambiguous policies about immigration enforcement in courts—could chill judicial independence and erode public trust in the justice system.
Prominent Democratic officials and court reform advocates have called for a careful appellate review, emphasizing due process and the complexity of the interplay between federal immigration enforcement and state judicial prerogatives. Some have compared this case to a similar prosecution during the Trump administration’s first term involving a Massachusetts judge, which was eventually dismissed.
Republican Calls for Resignation and Impeachment
In the immediate aftermath of the verdict, Wisconsin Republican leaders demanded that Dugan resign or face impeachment proceedings, citing state constitutional provisions that bar convicted felons from holding public office. Speakers including key state Republican lawmakers argued that Dugan’s impartiality has been compromised and that her continued presence on the bench—even in suspended status—undermines public confidence.
The pressure for impeachment intensifies as sentencing looms and political actors prepare to leverage the case for legislative action.
Identity of the Immigrant: Eduardo Flores-Ruiz
Central to the case was Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, the Mexican national at the heart of the arrest attempt. Having originally been deported in 2013, Flores-Ruiz was alleged to have re-entered the United States and was living in Milwaukee when he faced misdemeanor domestic violence charges earlier in 2025.
The incident that triggered the ICE operation occurred during his lawful court appearance on April 18. After Flores-Ruiz was briefly put back into federal custody following the courthouse chase, he was eventually deported later that year.
Legal Implications and Broader Context
Legal analysts point to the unprecedented nature of the case. Prosecuting a sitting judge for courtroom conduct—especially involving immigration enforcement—highlights deep tensions between local judicial authority and federal immigration powers. The legal arguments around judicial immunity, the scope of a judge’s power in her courtroom, and federal obstruction statutes have become a focal point in law schools and among constitutional experts.
Some observers see the case as an outgrowth of the Trump administration’s aggressive stance on immigration enforcement, which prioritized cracking down on any perceived interference with federal agents—even actions taken in judicial settings. Opponents of this view warn that such prosecutions risk politicizing the judiciary and opening the door to novel interpretations of obstruction statutes.
Looking Ahead: Sentencing and Appeal
With Dugan’s conviction now official, attention turns to her sentencing, which could occur in the coming months. Legal experts expect her defense team to pursue a vigorous appeal, arguing prosecutorial overreach, misinterpretation of judicial authority, and the improper application of obstruction law in the context of a judge performing her duties.
How higher courts—including the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals—will view these complex questions remains uncertain. Their decisions could have lasting implications for the separation of powers, the scope of federal enforcement authority, and the extent of judicial protections.