Former Wisconsin Judge Fined $5,000, Spared Prison for Obstructing ICE

A former Wisconsin judge was spared prison time on Wednesday and ordered to pay a $5,000 fine for obstructing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents who were attempting to arrest a Mexican immigrant outside her Milwaukee courtroom — a case that has become a national flashpoint in the clash between local judicial authority and federal immigration enforcement.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman sentenced former Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan, 67, to the fine with no prison time and no probation, despite federal sentencing guidelines that called for 15 to 21 months behind bars. The maximum sentence was five years.

“I think this is a situation where an otherwise good person, upset by immigration policies in this country, made a bad decision in the moment,” Adelman said, according to AP News.

The Incident and Conviction

The case stems from events on April 18, 2025, when ICE agents arrived at the Milwaukee County Courthouse to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, 31, a Mexican national who had reentered the United States illegally and was appearing before Dugan on a state battery charge.

Dugan confronted the agents outside her courtroom, arguing that their administrative warrant was insufficient. She directed them to the chief judge’s office, then led Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out through a private jury door. Agents spotted Flores-Ruiz in the corridor, followed him outside, and arrested him after a foot chase. Flores-Ruiz was deported to Mexico in November 2025.

A jury convicted Dugan on December 19, 2025, of felony obstruction of a federal immigration proceeding but acquitted her of a misdemeanor charge of concealing an individual to prevent arrest. The Guardian reported that her case marked the first time a state judge in Wisconsin had gone to trial on charges of obstructing immigration agents.

Sentencing and Courtroom Statements

During the July 8 sentencing hearing, Dugan addressed the court for the first time in over a year. “I have been cast as both a scofflaw and a hero. I am neither,” she said, as reported by USA Today. “I am a public servant who’s just trying to do my job.”

Adelman noted that Dugan had already suffered significant consequences: she lost her judgeship, was forced to move, and withdrew from public life due to threats against her and her family. “This is a few minutes of conduct for someone who has dedicated her life to public service,” the judge said. “It’s a marked deviation from an otherwise law-abiding life.”

Prosecutors had argued for a serious sentence. Executive Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Frohling wrote in a sentencing memo that “judges are entrusted with tremendous discretion, but there is a line they cannot cross. The defendant crossed that line.”

Resignation and Political Fallout

Dugan resigned from the Milwaukee County circuit judgeship she had held for nine years in January 2026 amid threats of impeachment from Republican state lawmakers who labeled her an activist judge. In her resignation letter, she said her prosecution threatened “the independence of our judiciary.”

Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, a candidate for Wisconsin governor, had called for Dugan to be “locked up.” The case unfolded against the backdrop of President Donald Trump’s sweeping immigration crackdown, which included ICE targeting immigrants as they showed up for court hearings — a practice that has generated significant controversy.

Fox News reported that several people testified on Dugan’s behalf at sentencing, including Rev. Gregory J. O’Meara, a Jesuit priest and law professor, who said: “Hannah models what it means to be Christian. I do not think there is a need for further punishment, deterrence, retribution or reform.”

Appeal and Broader Implications

Dugan’s attorneys announced they will appeal the felony obstruction conviction to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, advancing arguments that Dugan had judicial immunity and that the obstruction statute was incorrectly applied.

The case has become a national bellwether for the conflict between state judicial authority and federal immigration enforcement. Critics of ICE courthouse arrests argue they deter immigrants from appearing for court hearings and undermine trust in the judicial system, while the Trump administration maintains such arrests are necessary for public safety.

As Courthouse News Service noted, the sentence — significantly below federal guidelines — reflects the judge’s view that Dugan’s otherwise law-abiding life and decades of public service warranted leniency. The question now is whether the 7th Circuit will uphold the conviction or rule that a judge’s actions within her own courthouse are protected by judicial immunity.

What’s Next

The appeal process could extend the legal battle for months or years. Regardless of the outcome, the case has already reshaped the landscape for judges confronting ICE operations in their courthouses, serving as both a cautionary tale and a rallying point in the ongoing national debate over immigration enforcement.