Today : Oct 13, 2025
U.S. News
27 August 2025

Wisconsin Judge Faces Trial Over ICE Obstruction

Judge Hannah Dugan remains on paid suspension as federal charges test boundaries between judicial authority and immigration enforcement in Milwaukee.

Suspended Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan finds herself at the center of a legal and political storm, as federal charges of obstructing immigration enforcement continue to unfold. Despite her suspension in late April 2025, Dugan has remained on the state payroll, collecting $48,997 in salary and benefits since her removal, according to open records obtained by The Federalist. Her biweekly pay rate stands at $6,712, with an annual salary of $174,512, a figure that has drawn scrutiny from state lawmakers and taxpayers alike.

The controversy erupted after Dugan allegedly helped Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an undocumented immigrant facing domestic battery charges, elude Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents at the Milwaukee County Courthouse on April 18, 2025. The incident set off a chain of events that thrust Dugan into the national spotlight and ignited fierce debate over the boundaries of judicial authority and federal immigration enforcement.

According to the criminal complaint, federal agents arrived at the courthouse with an administrative warrant to arrest Flores-Ruiz, who had previously been deported in 2013 and re-entered the United States illegally. When Dugan learned of their presence, she was “visibly angry” and confronted the agents, instructing them to speak with the chief judge. She then returned to her courtroom and, as the charging documents allege, directed Flores-Ruiz and his attorney to exit through a non-public jury door, effectively bypassing the federal agents waiting in the hallway. Flores-Ruiz was later apprehended outside the building after a brief foot chase, as reported by WISN and corroborated by federal court records.

Just days after the incident, FBI agents arrested Dugan at the courthouse, making her a high-profile example of the ongoing clash between the judiciary and the Trump administration’s renewed crackdown on undocumented immigrants. Dugan, 66, was indicted on May 13, 2025, on felony obstruction and misdemeanor charges. She pleaded not guilty and faces up to six years in prison and a $350,000 fine if convicted. However, legal experts note that first-time, nonviolent offenders like Dugan often receive shorter sentences or probation.

Her legal defense has been robust—and expensive. Dugan quickly established a legal defense fund, which raised nearly $140,000 in its first three weeks, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The fund’s website asserts, “Judge Hannah Dugan deserves a full and aggressive defense,” framing the federal prosecution as “the prosecution of America’s independent judiciary.” Notably, Dugan’s legal team includes former Solicitor General Paul Clement and ex-federal prosecutor Steve Biskupic, both prominent figures in legal circles. The identities of the fund’s donors, however, remain undisclosed until next year, as per Wisconsin reporting requirements.

The legal battle has been fierce, with Dugan’s attorneys arguing that she enjoys judicial immunity for actions taken in her official capacity and that prosecuting her violates the constitutional separation of powers. In July, U.S. Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph found these arguments “unconvincing,” writing, “It is well-established and undisputed that judges have absolute immunity from civil lawsuits for monetary damages when engaging in judicial acts. This, however, is not a civil case.” Joseph recommended that Dugan’s motion to dismiss the indictment be denied—a recommendation that set the stage for further judicial review.

On August 26, 2025, U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman formally denied Dugan’s motion to dismiss the federal charges, clearing the way for a potential trial later this year. In a detailed 27-page ruling, Adelman echoed Joseph’s findings and wrote, “There is no basis for granting immunity simply because some of the allegations in the indictment describe conduct that could be considered ‘part of the judge’s job.’” Adelman, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, is considered one of the more liberal federal judges in the nation, yet he firmly rejected Dugan’s claims of immunity and separation of powers.

Adelman’s ruling also addressed some of the broader concerns raised by Dugan’s defense, noting, “She wonders why, if official acts enjoy no immunity, a judge could not be prosecuted for handling contraband during a trial or scheduling a hearing in a manner that inconveniences federal law enforcement.” He acknowledged these as “very real concerns,” but ultimately concluded that the federal charges against Dugan arose from “unilateral, non-judicial and unofficial actions outside the role of a Wisconsin state judge,” as argued by prosecutors.

The ruling has been seen as a significant test of the Trump administration’s efforts to prosecute local officials who impede federal immigration enforcement. Since President Trump’s return to office, the Justice Department has ramped up lawsuits and investigations against so-called sanctuary cities and officials perceived as obstructing immigration agents. Dugan’s case, as reported by Bloomberg and The New York Times, has become emblematic of the tensions between state and federal authorities over immigration policy.

Reactions to the case have been polarized. More than 150 former state and federal judges signed a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, calling Dugan’s arrest “an attempt to intimidate the judiciary.” Protesters gathered outside the courthouse during Dugan’s arraignment, urging prosecutors to drop the charges. On the other side, Justice Department officials have maintained that “no one is above the law,” with Bondi stating, “It doesn’t matter what line of work you are in, if you break the law we will follow the facts and we will prosecute you.”

Meanwhile, Dugan’s suspension has spurred calls for reform in Wisconsin’s judicial suspension policy. The state Supreme Court placed her on administrative leave, declaring it was in the “public interest,” but allowed her to continue receiving full pay and benefits. Republican lawmakers, led by State Rep. Shae Sortwell, have introduced a bill to freeze the salaries of suspended judges. “Judicial suspension policy needs to be proper and consistent to ensure taxpayer dollars are not being wasted,” Sortwell said in a press release. The bill is currently pending in the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

Adding to the drama, police body cam footage from April 22, 2025, shows Dugan telling officers that reports of a federal investigation were “all lies.” She remarked, “What I’m worried about is just the whackos that will believe this story, which is not true. I’m not being investigated by the feds. The FBI was not there, you know. ICE was there. I directed him down the hall to the administrative offices. What happened after that is their business. 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. And these are the circumstances that warrant it: I had a room of 30 people, and I just sent him out the door.”

A hearing is scheduled for September 3, 2025, to determine whether Dugan’s legal team will appeal Adelman’s ruling. If they do, the case will move to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, potentially delaying a trial until 2026. If not, a trial could proceed later this year, keeping Wisconsin—and the nation—riveted on a case that touches on the limits of judicial independence, the reach of federal immigration law, and the responsibilities of public officials.

As the case moves forward, the outcome will likely resonate far beyond Milwaukee, shaping debates over immigration enforcement and judicial accountability for years to come.