Federal Judge Upholds Conviction of Ex-Wisconsin Judge in ICE Case

A federal judge on Tuesday upheld the felony obstruction conviction of former Wisconsin Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan, who was found guilty of helping an immigrant evade arrest by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at the Milwaukee County Courthouse. The ruling clears the way for sentencing in a case that has become a flashpoint in the national debate over judicial independence and the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement tactics.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman declined to overturn the jury’s December 2025 verdict, rejecting arguments from Dugan’s legal team that a recent federal appeals court ruling in a similar Virginia case undermined the legal basis for her conviction, according to AP News.

Background: The Courthouse Incident

The case stems from events on April 18, 2025, when ICE agents arrived at the Milwaukee County Courthouse with an administrative warrant to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a 30-year-old Mexican national who had illegally reentered the United States after deportation and was scheduled to appear before Dugan on misdemeanor battery charges.

Dugan confronted the agents outside her courtroom, telling them their administrative warrant — issued by ICE itself rather than a judge — was insufficient grounds for an arrest. She directed them to the office of Chief Judge Carl Ashley. She then returned to her courtroom, called Flores-Ruiz’s case, and directed him and his attorney to leave through a private jury door. ICE agents spotted Flores-Ruiz in the corridor, followed him outside, and arrested him after a foot chase near West State Street and Tenth Street in Milwaukee.

A week later, FBI agents arrested Dugan at the courthouse, leading her out in handcuffs. FBI Director Kash Patel announced the arrest on social media, stating Dugan had “intentionally misdirected federal agents.” Wikipedia notes that the case drew national attention, with critics describing the arrest as politically motivated and supporters characterizing it as a legitimate application of federal law.

Trial, Verdict, and Resignation

On December 18, 2025, a federal jury found Dugan guilty of one felony count of obstructing federal agents and not guilty on a lesser misdemeanor charge of concealing a wanted person. Two weeks later, on January 3, 2026, Dugan resigned from the bench amid threats of impeachment from Republican state lawmakers. In her resignation letter to Democratic Governor Tony Evers, she wrote that the federal proceedings presented “immense and complex challenges that threaten the independence of our judiciary,” as AP News reported.

The Legal Challenge

Dugan’s attorneys argued her conviction should be overturned based on an April 2026 ruling by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a Virginia case, which found that ICE detention did not constitute a “pending proceeding” under federal obstruction law (18 U.S.C. § 1505). They contended that the attempted arrest of Flores-Ruiz similarly did not qualify as a pending proceeding.

Judge Adelman rejected this argument in a 32-page order, distinguishing Dugan’s case from the Virginia precedent. He wrote that the attempted arrest of Flores-Ruiz was “a targeted operation, conducted pursuant to agency procedures, including the issuance of an arrest warrant for a specific person,” not a random encounter on the street. Adelman also noted that ICE can issue its own warrants and adjudicate removals without court involvement, unlike agencies such as the FBI, according to the Wisconsin Law Journal.

“The court’s decision is wrong,” Dugan’s legal defense team said in a brief statement following the ruling.

Broader Implications

The case has sharply divided opinion along partisan lines. Attorney General Pam Bondi has publicly supported the prosecution, stating, “If you are harboring a fugitive, we don’t care who you are. We will come after you and we will prosecute you.” Meanwhile, more than 150 former state and federal judges filed an amicus brief supporting Dugan, calling the prosecution an “egregious overreach by the executive branch” that would create a “chilling effect on judges.”

Dugan’s case was the first time a state judge in Wisconsin went to trial on charges of obstructing immigration agents, and it arose amid President Donald Trump’s second-term immigration crackdown, which included reversing a long-standing policy against routine courthouse arrests by ICE.

What’s Next

Dugan, 67, faces up to five years in prison, though federal sentencing guidelines generally call for probation for first-time, nonviolent offenders. A sentencing date has not yet been set. Dugan’s legal team has indicated it will appeal the conviction to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals following sentencing.

The case leaves open critical questions about the boundaries of judicial authority when state judges encounter federal immigration enforcement in their courtrooms — questions that will likely be tested further as the Trump administration continues its aggressive immigration enforcement posture.