On a brisk morning in April 2025, a routine day at the Milwaukee County Courthouse took a dramatic turn, thrusting Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan into the center of a legal and political firestorm. The events that unfolded would soon pit local judicial authority against federal immigration enforcement, raising pointed questions about the boundaries of judicial immunity and the pressures judges face in an era of heated immigration debate.
According to reporting by the Associated Press and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, it all began on April 18, 2025, when Judge Dugan presided over a misdemeanor case involving Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a 31-year-old man facing charges unrelated to his immigration status. Unbeknownst to most in the courtroom, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents had arrived at the courthouse, ready to arrest Flores-Ruiz on grounds that he was in the country without permanent legal status.
The next moments, captured on courthouse surveillance and later recounted in an FBI affidavit, would become the crux of a federal case against Judge Dugan. Witnesses reported hearing the judge say something to the effect of, “wait, come with me,” before she ushered Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out of the courtroom through a side door. This door, typically reserved for deputies, jurors, court staff, and in-custody defendants, led to a hallway about 12 feet from the main entrance—an exit far less visible to waiting ICE agents.
Video footage later confirmed Flores-Ruiz and his attorney’s discreet departure. Within minutes, agents spotted their quarry and, after a brief foot chase outside the courthouse, arrested Flores-Ruiz. The incident, seemingly over in a matter of minutes, would soon erupt into a federal indictment and widespread scrutiny of Judge Dugan’s actions.
Three days before her arrest, Judge Dugan found herself speaking to Milwaukee police officers at her home. The officers’ body cameras captured a candid and, at times, exasperated Dugan. “I didn’t do anything that they’re saying,” she told the officers, as reported by the Associated Press. She insisted she was unaware of any criminal investigation into her conduct at that time.
During the same conversation, Dugan explained her perspective on the events in her courtroom. “I don’t know if he’s an illegal immigrant, which is what they’re claiming. I’m not supposed to know that. When they come in front of me, I’m not supposed to know that,” she said. She denied giving Flores-Ruiz any special treatment, stating, “It’s all lies.” She further clarified, “I did not hide this migrant in the jury room or in my chambers. I had him leave out the back door, which I do when the circumstances warrant it.”
Her defense would later argue that Dugan’s actions amounted to nothing more than directing the movement of people in and around her courtroom—a routine part of a judge’s job. In a motion to dismiss the charges, her attorneys asserted that Dugan was acting within the scope of her official duties and, therefore, should be protected by legal immunity. “Her comments reinforced that she did nothing wrong in this matter and treated the misdemeanor case like any other in her courtroom,” her attorneys said in a public statement.
Yet, federal prosecutors saw things differently. In May 2025, a grand jury indicted Judge Dugan on two charges: concealing an individual to prevent arrest, a misdemeanor, and obstruction, a felony. If convicted on both counts, she faces up to six years in prison and a $350,000 fine. The charges allege that by escorting Flores-Ruiz out the back door and away from ICE agents, Dugan intentionally impeded a federal agency’s efforts to arrest a wanted individual.
In the days following the incident, the case swiftly became a flashpoint in the broader conflict between federal immigration authorities and local officials. Democrats accused the federal government—under the administration of then-President Donald Trump—of seeking to make an example of Judge Dugan, hoping to chill judicial resistance to aggressive immigration enforcement. “We live in very difficult times,” Dugan told officers during her conversation at home. “We all know that. Very difficult.”
The controversy was further inflamed when, on April 22, Dugan called police to her home about a flyer from an anti-government group that her family members had received at their homes and workplaces. The incident, while not directly related to the courtroom episode, underscored the tense and sometimes personal nature of the backlash facing public officials caught in the crossfire of the nation’s immigration debate.
As the case wound its way through the courts, Dugan maintained her innocence. She pleaded not guilty and fought to have the charges thrown out, pointing to her long record of judicial service and her insistence that she had no knowledge of Flores-Ruiz’s immigration status at the time. “I directed federal agents down the hall to the administrative offices. What happened after that is their business,” she explained to police, as reported by the Associated Press.
Her attorneys also emphasized that Dugan’s comments to police occurred before she was aware of the criminal investigation, suggesting that her statements were honest and unguarded. The defense stressed that her actions were consistent with her duties as a judge, and that she had not sought to impede law enforcement but rather to manage the logistics and safety of her courtroom.
The case has drawn national attention, not only for its legal stakes but also for what it reveals about the daily realities facing judges in contentious policy arenas. Supporters of Dugan argue that the charges represent an overreach by federal authorities and risk undermining judicial independence. Critics, meanwhile, contend that no one—including judges—should be above the law, especially when it comes to upholding federal statutes.
As the legal proceedings continue, the outcome could set important precedents for how far local officials, including judges, can go in exercising discretion when federal agents seek to enforce immigration laws. The case also highlights the ongoing tension between local and federal authorities—a tension unlikely to dissipate, regardless of the courtroom’s final verdict.
For now, Judge Hannah Dugan’s future remains uncertain, her case a potent symbol of the complex, often fraught intersection of law, politics, and humanity in America’s immigration system.
