In a case that has drawn national attention and ignited fierce debate over the boundaries of judicial authority and federal immigration enforcement, Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan was found guilty of felony obstruction on December 18, 2025. The verdict, delivered after six hours of jury deliberation, marks the first time a sitting state judge has been convicted for obstructing immigration agents, according to reports from the Associated Press and ABC Milwaukee affiliate WISN.
The dramatic episode unfolded on April 18, 2025, when federal immigration agents arrived at the Milwaukee County Courthouse. Their target was Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a 31-year-old Mexican national who had reentered the United States illegally and was scheduled to appear before Judge Dugan on a state battery charge. Tensions were already high among county judges, as federal agents had arrested two other individuals suspected of being in the country illegally earlier that day, as reported by Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
According to court records and an FBI affidavit, Judge Dugan learned from her clerk that immigration authorities were waiting in the corridor outside her courtroom. She left the bench, confronted the agents, and—falsely, federal prosecutors argued—informed them that their administrative warrant was not sufficient grounds to arrest Flores-Ruiz. She then directed them to the chief judge’s office, which was working on a policy for handling such arrests. While the agents were away, Dugan quickly moved Flores-Ruiz’s case to the top of her docket, told his attorney that he could attend his next hearing via Zoom, and led both Flores-Ruiz and his counsel out a private jury door, according to ABC News and AP accounts.
Witnesses and audio evidence played a pivotal role in the trial. Prosecutors presented audio recordings where Dugan could be heard telling her court reporter, “I’ll get the heat,” as she led Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out a non-public exit. Video footage and testimony from fellow judges, including Judge Kristela Cervera, painted a picture of a judge determined to defy the immigration agents, with Cervera stating, “Judges should not be helping defendants evade arrest,” as quoted by the Journal Sentinel.
The escape attempt, however, was short-lived. Federal agents spotted Flores-Ruiz in the corridor, pursued him outside, and arrested him after a brief foot chase. Flores-Ruiz was later charged with unlawful reentry into the United States. According to federal court records and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, he pleaded guilty, was sentenced to time served, and was deported in November 2025.
The trial itself lasted four days, with the prosecution and defense offering starkly different narratives. Federal prosecutors argued that Dugan’s actions were deliberate and calculated, designed specifically to create an opening for Flores-Ruiz to escape. As Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche asserted on X (formerly Twitter), Dugan “betrayed her oath and the people she served.” Interim U.S. Attorney Brad Schimel echoed this sentiment, stating, “We weren’t trying to make an example out of anyone. This was necessary to hold Judge Dugan accountable because of the actions she took.” Schimel insisted, “There’s not a political aspect to it,” even as the case became a flashpoint in the ongoing clash between the judiciary and the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration crackdown.
The defense, meanwhile, painted a very different picture. Dugan’s attorneys argued that she was simply following courthouse protocols, which required court employees to report the presence of immigration agents to their supervisors. They contended she did not intend to obstruct the arrest and was acting as an earnest public servant caught in the crosshairs of a broader political battle. The defense also questioned the reliability of the government’s audio evidence and maintained that the prosecution’s case was “riddled with doubts” and based on “assumptions,” according to WISN. Dugan herself did not testify during the trial, but her legal team, led by Steven Biskupic, highlighted the split verdict as evidence of the case’s complexity and indicated plans to file a motion to set aside the conviction.
Adding to the high-profile nature of the case, the defense called former Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett as a character witness, though he had not been present at the courthouse on the day in question. The government, for its part, brought in 19 witnesses, ranging from federal agents to a fellow judge, to build their case. The jury, drawn from 12 counties in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, deliberated for more than six hours and asked several questions about ICE regulations and the specifics of courthouse arrest protocols before returning their verdict.
In the aftermath of the April incident, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended Judge Dugan from her official duties, stating in an order that it was “in the public interest that she be temporarily relieved of her official duties.” Milwaukee County Circuit Court Chief Judge Carl Ashley announced that Dugan’s docket would be managed by a reserve judge as needed. No sentencing hearing has yet been scheduled, but Dugan faces up to five years in prison for the felony obstruction conviction, according to AP and WISN.
The case has become emblematic of the fraught intersection between local judicial independence and federal immigration enforcement. While prosecutors sought to keep the focus on Dugan’s individual actions—“this case is serious for all involved, it is ultimately about a single day – a single day – in a public courthouse,” Schimel emphasized—the trial was widely seen as a bellwether in the broader conflict over the Trump administration’s immigration policies. Defense attorneys accused the administration of trying to “crush” Dugan to send a message to other judges who might resist federal immigration operations.
For many legal observers, the verdict raises thorny questions about the limits of judicial discretion, the scope of judicial immunity, and the proper role of state courts when federal agents seek to make arrests within their walls. Dugan’s attempts to dismiss the case on the grounds of judicial immunity were denied, but her legal team has preserved the right to challenge the verdict on those grounds in the future.
As the legal wrangling continues and Dugan’s fate hangs in the balance, the case stands as a stark reminder of the personal and institutional stakes at play when the judiciary and the executive branch collide over the contentious issue of immigration enforcement. With no sentencing date yet set and appeals likely, the final chapter in Judge Dugan’s saga remains unwritten—but its impact on the American legal landscape is already being felt.
