A federal jury in Milwaukee on Thursday convicted Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan of felony obstruction for her conduct during a courthouse incident in April, when a Mexican national facing charges briefly eluded federal immigration agents. Though acquitted on a related misdemeanor charge, Dugan’s conviction could carry a prison sentence and ends her ability to serve on the bench under state law.
Subhead: Details of the Courtroom Encounter and Verdict
In April, federal immigration agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the FBI arrived at the Milwaukee County Courthouse to arrest an undocumented man, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, on immigration violations while he was appearing in Judge Dugan’s courtroom. According to prosecutors, Dugan questioned the officers’ authority in the courthouse and then redirected them, allowing Flores-Ruiz and his attorney to exit through a private door toward a public hallway — briefly permitting his escape before he was caught outside. After roughly six hours of deliberation, the jury found Dugan guilty of felony obstruction but not guilty on a misdemeanor count related to concealing an individual to prevent arrest.
Subhead: Legal Consequences and Reaction
Because Wisconsin law bars individuals convicted of felonies from holding public office, Dugan’s judicial career is effectively over. She could face up to five years in prison for the obstruction conviction. Her defense has signaled plans to challenge the verdict, citing inconsistencies in the split jury decision. Meanwhile, federal prosecutors maintained that no public official is above the law when it comes to cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
Subhead: Broader Impact on Immigration Enforcement and Courts
The high-profile conviction highlights ongoing tensions between local judicial practices and federal immigration actions, especially amid expanded enforcement efforts. Supporters of the verdict say it underscores the rule of law and accountability for public officials, while critics warn it could deter judges from taking discretionary steps in sensitive immigration matters. The case has become part of the broader national conversation about how and where immigration arrests should occur, particularly inside public courthouses.
