The federal courthouse in Milwaukee was abuzz on December 15, 2025, as the high-profile trial of Judge Hannah Dugan officially began. Dugan, a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, stands accused of obstructing federal immigration agents and concealing an undocumented man, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, in an incident that has become a flashpoint in the ongoing national debate over immigration enforcement and judicial independence. The case, unfolding under the watchful eye of U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, has drawn attention from across the country, with both political and legal observers closely monitoring the proceedings.
According to ABC News, Dugan faces a two-count federal indictment that alleges she knowingly concealed Flores-Ruiz from Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents and obstructed official removal proceedings. The charges stem from an April 18, 2025, incident at the Milwaukee County Courthouse, where Flores-Ruiz was scheduled to appear before Dugan on a battery charge. Federal agents were present that day, intent on arresting Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican national who had reentered the United States illegally in 2013.
The prosecution alleges that after learning of the agents’ presence, Dugan directed them to the chief judge’s office and then led Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out a non-public back door, enabling him to temporarily evade arrest. As reported by Milwaukee Independent, an FBI affidavit claims Dugan grew angry upon seeing the agents, declared the situation “absurd,” and argued with them over the validity of their warrant. She then told the agents to consult with the chief judge before shepherding Flores-Ruiz out through a jury door to a public corridor. Federal agents, realizing what had happened, pursued Flores-Ruiz outside the building and arrested him after a brief foot chase.
The trial’s opening statements kicked off after a jury of twelve and two alternates was selected from a pool of about seventy-five prospects, a process that included private questioning about political affiliations and attitudes toward law enforcement. Dugan’s attorneys, according to Milwaukee Independent, expressed concern that intense publicity and the case’s political overtones might taint the jury pool. They distributed detailed questionnaires to prospective jurors, probing their political organizations, media consumption, and personal views about government authority and immigration enforcement.
Prosecutors have lined up between twenty-five and twenty-eight witnesses, expecting the government’s case to run through at least December 18. The trial is being closely covered by local and national media, though, as Milwaukee Journal Sentinel notes, no filming or recording is allowed inside the federal courthouse. Instead, a courtroom sketch artist is providing illustrations, and a live video feed outside the courthouse offers the public periodic updates. Interested citizens can attend the trial in person, with an overflow room available for those unable to secure a seat in the main courtroom.
The charges against Dugan are serious: one felony count of obstructing a federal agency and one misdemeanor count of concealing an individual to prevent arrest. If convicted, she could face up to six years in prison and a $350,000 fine. However, as Milwaukee Journal Sentinel points out, sentences in nonviolent cases like this are typically shorter.
Following her indictment on April 24, 2025, the Wisconsin Supreme Court moved swiftly to suspend Dugan from the bench, stating it was in the public interest that she be temporarily relieved of her official duties. This suspension came just days after the charges were filed, underscoring the gravity with which state authorities viewed the situation.
The case has become emblematic of the broader clash between the judiciary and the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration policies. As reported by Associated Press, President Donald Trump’s administration has branded Dugan an “activist judge,” with Republican U.S. Representative Tom Tiffany, a staunch Trump ally, publicly calling for authorities to “lock her up.” Democrats, on the other hand, argue that the administration is making an example of Dugan in an attempt to deter judicial resistance to its immigration crackdown.
The personal toll of the case on Dugan has been significant. She told police that she and her family discovered threatening flyers at their homes in the wake of the incident. The political and media firestorm has thrust Dugan, previously known as a conscientious and stern advocate for the poor and a fixture in Milwaukee’s progressive circles, into the national spotlight. Colleagues and community leaders, according to Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, describe her as a careful judge who is deeply committed to following the law and upholding the justice system.
Dugan’s defense hinges on two main arguments. First, her attorneys claim she is immune from prosecution because she was acting in her official capacity as a judge, asserting there was “no consciousness of wrongdoing, no wrongfulness, no deception.” They moved to dismiss the case on these grounds, but Judge Adelman denied the motion, ruling in September 2025 that there is “no firmly established judicial immunity barring criminal prosecution.” Second, Dugan’s team contends she was simply following courthouse protocols regarding immigration arrests. They point to a draft policy issued by Milwaukee County Chief Judge Carl Ashley about a week before the April 18 incident, which barred immigration officers from executing administrative warrants in nonpublic courthouse areas and required court personnel to refer any agents to a supervisor. According to Dugan, she was following this protocol when she directed agents to the chief judge and subsequently led Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out through a non-public exit.
Federal guidance, as referenced in Milwaukee Independent, does allow immigration agents to carry out enforcement actions in or near courthouses under certain conditions, but it also instructs agents to coordinate with court security and minimize disruption. Dugan’s defense argues that her actions were in line with these principles and that she was “trying to ascertain, and follow, the rules.”
As for Flores-Ruiz, the man at the center of the controversy, he was eventually arrested after the courthouse foot chase and charged with unlawful reentry into the United States. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to time served in early December 2025, according to federal court records. The Department of Homeland Security announced in November that Flores-Ruiz had been deported.
The trial, expected to last at least through the week, raises critical questions about the limits of judicial authority, the proper role of federal immigration enforcement in local courthouses, and the impact of political pressures on the justice system. As the proceedings continue, all eyes remain on Milwaukee, where the outcome could set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future.
With the nation watching, the Dugan trial stands as a stark example of the tensions and complexities that arise when the judiciary, law enforcement, and politics collide in the courtroom.
