Wisconsin Judge Who Helped Illegal Alien Escape ICE Learns Fate
A federal judge has upheld the felony conviction of former Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan, delivering a decisive rebuke to her efforts to overturn the verdict after being found guilty of obstructing federal immigration enforcement.
In a detailed ruling, U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman determined that the evidence presented at trial was more than sufficient for a jury to conclude that Dugan intentionally interfered with officers from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) who were attempting to carry out a lawful arrest outside her courtroom in April 2025.
The decision follows a weeklong trial last December, where a jury convicted Dugan on a felony obstruction charge while acquitting her of a separate allegation that she concealed an individual facing deportation. In January, Dugan sought to have the conviction tossed or to secure a new trial, challenging everything from the validity of the administrative warrant to the jury instructions and the interpretation of federal obstruction law.
Judge Adelman, however, rejected those arguments in a 39-page opinion, making clear that judicial authority does not extend to interfering with federal law enforcement operations.
“As I noted in denying the motion to dismiss, there was no basis for granting immunity simply because the indictment described conduct that could be considered ‘part of a judge’s job,’” Adelman wrote.
At the center of the case is an April 18, 2025 incident involving Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, who was scheduled to appear in Dugan’s courtroom. Evidence presented at trial showed that after learning ICE officers were waiting to make an arrest, Dugan took steps that prosecutors argued were designed to help the individual evade authorities.
According to court findings, Dugan directed another judge, Kristela Cervera, to engage with ICE agents and route them to Chief Judge Carl Ashley’s office under the pretense of reviewing an administrative warrant. Meanwhile, audio recordings revealed that Dugan quickly called Flores-Ruiz’s case, rescheduled it, and directed him and his attorney through a restricted jury door into a private hallway—allowing them to exit toward a public area where agents were positioned.
Dugan maintained that she did not intend to obstruct the arrest and claimed she was acting within her authority to manage courtroom proceedings. She also argued that Flores-Ruiz was protected from civil arrest while attending court and that her actions were aimed at upholding that principle.
The court rejected those claims, concluding that Dugan failed to demonstrate she had the authority to assert such protections in this context or to interfere with federal enforcement actions.
“Defendant takes issue with the concept that a corrupt motive can make lawful acts unlawful … it would be improper to hold [the law] cannot be applied to the conduct at issue here just because difficult line drawing issue may arise in other cases,” Adelman wrote.
The judge also addressed Dugan’s argument that she lacked key knowledge about the individual involved, noting that such specifics are not required to establish obstruction.
“By way of analogy, in felony possession prosecutions the government typically identifies the firearm by make, model and serial number,” Adelman explained. “But no one would argue the government is therefore required to prove the defendant knew the gun’s serial number.”
Perhaps most damaging to Dugan’s defense were her own recorded statements following the incident. Audio presented at trial captured her telling a clerk, “I’ll do it. I’ll take the heat,” and later acknowledging to a colleague that she was “in the doghouse” with the chief judge because she “tried to help that guy.”
The ruling underscores a broader principle emphasized by conservatives: no individual—regardless of position—is above the law, particularly when it comes to obstructing federal authorities tasked with enforcing immigration policy. Under President Donald J. Trump’s second term, immigration enforcement has remained a central pillar of national security, making cases like this a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over the rule of law.
With her conviction now upheld, Dugan’s legal options narrow significantly, and the case stands as a high-profile example of the consequences facing public officials who cross the line from judicial discretion into unlawful interference.