The federal trial of Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan is underway in Milwaukee, drawing national attention as it tests the boundaries of judicial authority and federal immigration enforcement. The case, which began with jury selection on December 8, 2025, centers on allegations that Judge Dugan helped a Mexican immigrant, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, evade federal officers at the courthouse earlier this year. Opening statements are scheduled for December 15, setting the stage for a high-profile legal battle that could have significant implications for both the judiciary and immigration policy.
On Thursday, December 11, U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton in 1997, seated a jury of 14—nine men and five women, including two alternates. According to FOX6 News, the process involved rigorous questioning of potential jurors about their impartiality, knowledge of witnesses, and ability to serve over the expected four to five days of trial. Some questioning was conducted in private to protect personal information, with audio blocked for certain sessions, reflecting the sensitivity and public interest in the case.
The charges against Judge Dugan stem from an incident on April 18, 2025, when federal agents arrived at the Milwaukee County Courthouse to arrest Flores-Ruiz, who had illegally reentered the United States from Mexico in 2013 and was facing a misdemeanor battery charge. According to an FBI affidavit cited by the Associated Press, a public defender noticed the agents and alerted Dugan’s clerk. Dugan, reportedly angered by the situation and calling it "absurd," confronted the agents, questioned the validity of their warrant, and directed them to speak with the chief judge. She then returned to her courtroom, summoned Flores-Ruiz and his attorney, and led them out a back jury door to a public corridor, allowing Flores-Ruiz to escape—at least temporarily.
Federal prosecutors allege that Dugan’s actions constituted obstruction and concealment, as she knowingly prevented Flores-Ruiz’s arrest. The Associated Press reports that after a brief foot chase outside the courthouse, agents apprehended Flores-Ruiz, who later pleaded guilty to illegal reentry and was deported in November 2025. Dugan was arrested by federal agents at the courthouse on April 25, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court subsequently suspended her indefinitely.
The trial is being closely watched for its broader implications. As noted by attorney Julius Kim in an interview with FOX6 News, "The entire situation, the entire matter really happened in what? Twenty-two minutes?" He emphasized that, while the facts may be straightforward, "there are a lot of eyes on this case just because of the national ramifications that are on the line here." Both prosecution and defense are tasked with presenting their cases clearly, ensuring jurors understand the legal issues at stake.
Dugan’s defense team argues that she acted within her official capacity as a judge and followed established courthouse protocols. According to their filings, Dugan had "no consciousness of wrongdoing, no wrongfulness, no deception." They point to a draft policy circulated by Milwaukee County Chief Judge Carl Ashley about a week before the incident, which barred immigration agents from executing administrative warrants in nonpublic courthouse areas and required court personnel to refer agents to a supervisor. Dugan maintains that she complied with this policy by directing agents to the chief judge and only later escorted Flores-Ruiz out of her courtroom when it was clear that agents were waiting to arrest him in the hallway.
Federal guidance issued on January 21, 2025, allows immigration agents to conduct enforcement actions in or near courthouses under certain conditions, such as coordinating with court security and minimizing disruption to court operations. The defense contends that Dugan was "trying to ascertain, and follow, the rules," and that Chief Judge Ashley had denied agents permission to arrest Flores-Ruiz in the courtroom or hallway. Ultimately, agents decided to abandon their plan to arrest him inside and instead apprehended him outside, according to Dugan’s account.
Meanwhile, the prosecution argues that Dugan’s actions went beyond protocol and amounted to criminal obstruction. The Associated Press notes that the Trump administration has been vocal in its criticism of Dugan, with the Department of Homeland Security accusing her of taking the term "activist judge" to a new level. FBI Director Kash Patel even posted a photo of Dugan being led out of the courthouse in handcuffs on social media, underscoring the administration’s intent to make an example of her amid a wider immigration crackdown.
The case has also raised concerns about jury impartiality, given the political and media attention it has received. Dugan’s attorneys sent questionnaires to prospective jurors in the fall, probing their political affiliations, media consumption, and even the stickers and signs on their personal belongings, in an effort to root out potential bias. During the jury selection process, Judge Adelman read the grand jury’s indictment to the pool and reminded them that Dugan had pleaded not guilty, as reported by FOX6 News.
Judge Adelman, who is presiding over the trial, brings a reputation for independence and a history of high-profile rulings. In 2014, he struck down Wisconsin’s voter photo identification law, calling it an unfair burden on poor and minority voters—a decision later overturned by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He has also publicly criticized the U.S. Supreme Court for what he sees as erosions of democracy, according to the Associated Press.
The trial is expected to last through at least December 19, with both sides preparing to distill the legal complexities for a lay jury. As attorney Julius Kim put it, "Ideally, you wanted someone [seated on the jury] who will be fair and give your side the time of day." With the spotlight firmly on Milwaukee, the outcome will likely reverberate beyond the courthouse, influencing debates over judicial independence, immigration enforcement, and the role of federal authorities in state courtrooms.
As the opening statements approach, all eyes remain on Judge Dugan, the jury, and the legal teams, as they navigate the intersection of law, policy, and public opinion in a case that is anything but ordinary.
