Judge Upholds Conviction Of Judge Who Helped Illegal Evade ICE

A federal judge on Tuesday upheld the conviction of former Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan, who was found guilty after helping an illegal immigrant avoid U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman declined to reconsider Dugan’s conviction and also refused to set a new sentencing date after previously delaying her sentencing from June 3.

Dugan’s attorneys sharply criticized the ruling, calling Adelman’s decision “wrong.”

Her defense team pointed to United States v. Hernandez, a case involving an immigrant detained by ICE who escaped, was later apprehended again, and was indicted for obstructing a pending immigration hearing. Although he was convicted, a federal appeals court overturned that conviction in April.

Dugan’s lawyers argued that Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, the Mexican immigrant she escorted through a private courthouse door to avoid ICE officers, was subject to an arrest warrant rather than a pending immigration proceeding.

Adelman, a former Democratic state legislator appointed to the federal bench by former President Bill Clinton, rejected that reasoning.

“At oral argument, defendant noted that ICE goes out every day to try to arrest people on the street,” Adelman wrote.

He summarized the defense’s position by asking, “Given the estimated 10 million undocumented persons in the United States, does that mean there are 10 million pending proceedings?”

The judge said Dugan “insists that there needs to be some formality, i.e., a proceeding before an agency involving parties trying to come to a determination, an adjudication.”

But Adelman said the facts of this case were different.

“The problem for the defense is that this case did not involve some random encounter on the street,” he continued.

“It was a targeted operation, conducted pursuant to agency procedures, including the issuance of an arrest warrant for a specific person, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz.”

Dugan was convicted of obstruction charges in December. She faces up to five years in prison on the more serious obstruction count, though first-time offenders are rarely given the maximum sentence.

The case became a national flashpoint earlier this year when the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued an administrative order temporarily removing Dugan from her judicial duties.

Back in April, the court directed that Dugan be “temporarily relieved of her official duties” after federal authorities arrested and charged her with obstruction of an official proceeding.

She was also charged with hiding a person to prevent detection and arrest.

Federal investigators alleged that Dugan concealed Flores-Ruiz from federal immigration authorities after he appeared in her courtroom.

At the time, officials from ICE, FBI, CBP, and DEA were seeking to apprehend Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican citizen who had previously been deported. He had appeared before Dugan on April 18 to face three misdemeanor battery charges tied to allegations that he assaulted two people.

According to the lawsuit, Dugan directed police to go to the chief judge’s office and, after Flores-Ruiz’s hearing, escorted him and his attorney through a restricted jury door. That route bypassed the public area where federal agents were waiting to arrest him.

The case quickly became a symbol of the conflict between the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement agenda and local officials accused of undermining federal law.

Then-Attorney General Pam Bondi blasted Dugan’s conduct in April.

“We could not believe that a judge really did that,” Bondi said.

“You cannot obstruct a criminal case. And really, shame on her. It was a domestic violence case of all cases, and she’s protecting a criminal defendant over victims of crime,” Bondi added.

Bondi said Flores-Ruiz had attacked two people, “a guy and a girl.”

“[He] beat the guy, hit the guy 30 times, knocked him to the ground, choked him, beat up a woman so badly; they both had to go to the hospital,” she said.

For conservatives, the case has underscored a basic principle: no judge is above the law, and no courtroom should become a shield against lawful immigration enforcement.

Dugan’s defenders have framed the case as an overreach by federal authorities. But critics argue that the allegations go far beyond political disagreement over immigration policy. A judge accused of using her official position to help a previously deported criminal defendant evade federal officers strikes at the heart of public trust in the justice system.

The ruling leaves Dugan’s conviction intact as the case moves toward sentencing.

For the Trump administration and immigration enforcement supporters, Adelman’s decision marks another step toward accountability in a case that has become a national test of whether local officials can obstruct federal immigration law without consequences.