Feds Slam Former Judge’s Attempts To Overturn Conviction For Shielding Illegal
Federal prosecutors are pushing back forcefully against an attempt by a former Wisconsin judge to overturn her felony conviction tied to an incident involving federal immigration enforcement.
Former Hannah Dugan was convicted by a jury last year of felony obstruction after helping an illegal immigrant evade federal agents inside the Milwaukee County Courthouse.
Now, Dugan is asking Lynn Adelman to either grant her a new trial or overturn the conviction entirely.
But federal prosecutors say the effort is legally baseless.
In a filing submitted Thursday, government attorneys argued that Dugan’s legal team is relying “on arguments that she has waived or which the Court already has rejected.”
Conviction Stemmed From Courthouse Incident
The conviction stems from an April 18 incident in which federal immigration officers arrived at the courthouse to detain Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an illegal immigrant accused in a misdemeanor domestic abuse case.
Agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had obtained an administrative warrant to take Flores-Ruiz into custody for entering the United States illegally.
According to evidence presented at trial, Dugan escorted the man through a side door of her courtroom, allowing him to avoid immigration officers who were waiting to arrest him in the hallway.
Prosecutors argued that the move deliberately interfered with federal law enforcement officers attempting to carry out their duties.
A jury ultimately agreed, convicting Dugan of felony obstruction.
Wisconsin Supreme Court Removed Her From the Bench
Following the conviction, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued an administrative order earlier this year suspending Dugan from her judicial responsibilities.
The order directed that Dugan be “temporarily relieved of her official duties.”
It further stated she “is temporarily prohibited from exercising the powers of a circuit court judge in the State of Wisconsin.”
The court added that the suspension would remain in place “until further order of the court.”
Defense Claims Arrest Was Improper
Dugan’s legal team is now arguing that the immigration agents should not have been attempting an arrest inside the courthouse in the first place.
Her attorneys contend that the administrative warrant signed by an ICE official did not provide sufficient legal authority to carry out an arrest in the courtroom area.
They also claim there exists a “common-law privilege” that shields individuals from immigration arrests while attending court proceedings.
Federal prosecutors rejected that argument outright in their latest filing.
“Arrests at the courthouse are a common practice and can be made in a public hallway with or even without a warrant based on probable cause,” government attorneys wrote.
During the trial, federal agents testified they had informed courthouse officials that they intended to arrest Flores-Ruiz after his hearing concluded in Dugan’s courtroom.
Debate Over Immigration Enforcement at Courthouses
The case has also become part of a larger national debate over immigration enforcement in judicial settings.
Supporters of the policy, including officials in the administration of President Donald J. Trump, argue that courthouses provide a controlled environment where arrests can be carried out safely.
Because everyone entering a courthouse must pass through security checkpoints and metal detectors, officials say the setting reduces the risk of violence or dangerous confrontations.
Critics, however, claim immigration enforcement in courthouses discourages individuals from appearing in court—especially immigrants who may be witnesses or victims of crimes.
Prior to the April 18 incident, several immigration arrests had already taken place at the Milwaukee courthouse that year.
Those arrests prompted Carl Ashley to begin drafting an official policy to guide courthouse staff on how to respond to ICE operations.
Ashley testified during Dugan’s trial that, to the best of his knowledge, immigration agents were legally permitted to make arrests in courthouse hallways. However, he acknowledged that the formal policy was still being drafted at the time of the incident.
Prosecutors Say Defense Is Too Late
In their latest filing, federal prosecutors argued that Dugan’s legal team is attempting to introduce new legal arguments that should have been raised before the trial.
Because those issues were not addressed earlier, prosecutors say they cannot now be used to overturn the verdict.
Dugan’s lawyers also claim the prosecution failed to prove she acted “corruptly,” a key requirement for the obstruction charge.
They argue that everything Dugan did that day—including canceling Flores-Ruiz’s hearing and suggesting it be rescheduled via Zoom—fell within a judge’s lawful authority.
Prosecutors disagree, arguing that a judge cannot use the power of the bench to intentionally interfere with federal law enforcement.
According to the government’s filing, Dugan’s actions crossed that line by deliberately helping a suspect avoid arrest.
The court will now decide whether her conviction stands or whether the case will proceed to a new trial.