- Judge Hannah Dugan is charged with obstructing federal immigration authorities and concealing a defendant to prevent his arrest.
- Prosecutors say she directed the defendant out a nonpublic jury door; she pleaded not guilty and faces up to six years.
- The trial has divided opinion, raising questions about courthouse immigration policy, judicial authority, and federal enforcement.
Milwaukee, Wis. — On a crisp Monday morning in December 2025, opening statements kicked off in one of the most closely watched federal trials in recent Wisconsin history.
Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan, a longtime jurist known for her community involvement, sat at the defense table facing charges that she obstructed federal immigration authorities and helped conceal a defendant to prevent his arrest.
The case stems from an incident on April 18, 2025, inside Dugan’s sixth-floor courtroom at the Milwaukee County Courthouse.
The FrankNez Media Daily Briefing newsletter provides all the news you need to start your day. Sign up here.
– FNM
Details of the Case
Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a 31-year-old Mexican national facing a misdemeanor battery charge related to domestic abuse, was scheduled for a hearing.
Federal agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), along with others from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), were waiting to arrest him on immigration violations, as he had allegedly reentered the U.S. illegally after a prior deportation in 2013.
According to prosecutors, when Dugan learned of the agents’ presence, she left the bench, confronted them in the hallway, and directed them to speak with the chief judge’s office.
In the meantime, she allegedly instructed Flores-Ruiz and his attorney to exit through a non-public jury door, an action authorities claim was intended to help him evade capture.
Despite the effort, agents spotted Flores-Ruiz outside and arrested him after a brief foot chase.
Dugan, 66, has pleaded not guilty to the two-count indictment: obstruction of official DHS removal proceedings and knowingly concealing a person from arrest.
If convicted, she faces up to six years in prison.Prosecutors plan to call 25 to 28 witnesses, including courthouse staff and agents present that day.
In pretrial filings, they described Dugan’s actions as going beyond her judicial role.
One detail highlighted in coverage: a prosecutor noted during opening statements that Dugan reportedly told her court reporter she would “take the heat” for directing Flores-Ruiz out the side door.
Dugan’s defense team has called her arrest “virtually unprecedented” and argued she was following evolving courthouse protocols on immigration enforcement.
They contend she referred agents to a supervisor as per draft guidelines and aimed to avoid confrontations in her courtroom, not to obstruct federal law.
U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman denied a motion to dismiss the case, ruling there was “no basis for granting immunity simply because some of the allegations in the indictment describe conduct that could be considered ‘part of a judge’s job.'”
The trial, expected to last about a week, has drawn national attention amid President Donald Trump’s ongoing immigration crackdown.
Jury selection wrapped up last week, with 12 jurors and two alternates seated—nine men and five women, all appearing white, after questioning on topics like immigration views and trust in law enforcement.
What Happened to Flores-Ruiz?
Flores-Ruiz, the defendant at the center of the controversy, pleaded guilty to unlawful reentry and was sentenced to time served earlier this month.
DHS announced in November that he had been deported back to Mexico.
A DHS statement described him as “a criminal illegal alien from Mexico” with “a laundry list of violent criminal charges, including strangulation and suffocation, battery, and domestic abuse.”
Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin added that Dugan’s alleged actions took “‘activist judge’ to a whole new meaning.”
Dugan’s Background and Suspension
Before this case, Hannah Dugan had a distinguished career in Milwaukee’s legal community.
Elected to the bench in 2016, she previously served as president of the Milwaukee Bar Association, chaired the Wisconsin Judicial Commission, and worked as executive director for Catholic Charities of Southeastern Wisconsin.
Friends and colleagues describe her as deeply committed to justice and community service.In the wake of her April arrest by the FBI—captured in photos showing her in handcuffs—the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended her with pay, stating it was “in the public interest that she be temporarily relieved of her official duties.”
She continues to earn her $175,000 annual salary pending the outcome.Broader Context: Immigration Enforcement in CourthousesThe incident wasn’t isolated.
Reports indicate ICE had made arrests at the Milwaukee County Courthouse in the weeks prior, sparking concerns about deterring defendants and witnesses from appearing.
Dugan’s defense has pointed to “court policy on immigration enforcement at the courthouse was in flux,” with draft protocols requiring referrals to supervisors.
This case echoes a 2018 incident in Massachusetts, where a judge faced similar charges for allowing an undocumented defendant to leave through a back door.
That case was eventually dropped by the Biden administration, with the judge referred to a judicial conduct commission instead.
Legal experts are divided.
Some, like Wisconsin criminal defense attorney Tony Cotton (not involved in the case), suggest intent is key:
“If what she was doing was explaining to the agents that there’s a different protocol that needs to be followed… and she was permitting the immigrant to use a different door, not to obstruct the police, but to reduce the confrontation in the courtroom, then it would bear on what her intent was.”
Others view the prosecution as necessary to uphold federal authority during heightened enforcement.
Former Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel has said prosecutors “have done this ethically. They have followed the law.”
Public Reaction and Protests
The case has polarized opinions in Milwaukee and beyond.
Protests erupted outside the federal courthouse and FBI office following Dugan’s arrest, with supporters holding anti-ICE signs and rallying for judicial independence.
Faith-based groups like MICAH have backed her, while critics, including DHS officials, have labeled her actions as interference.
A legal defense fund was established for Dugan, emphasizing an “unprecedented attack on the independent judiciary.”
Over 130 former judges filed an amicus brief earlier, calling the indictment an “egregious overreach” that could chill judicial decision-making.
As the trial unfolds, questions linger about the balance between state courtroom management and federal immigration powers.
Will this set a precedent for how judges handle ICE in their buildings?
Or is it a one-off in a heated political climate?
The jury’s verdict could impact not just Dugan’s career but broader debates on immigration and judicial roles.
For now, all eyes are on Milwaukee’s federal courthouse.
For more on updates like this, set FrankNez Media as a preferred source below.
Also Read: Trump’s Latest Executive Order is Now Under Fire by GOP
Contact | About | Home | Newsletter
Google is changing how it surfaces content. Prioritize our high-quality news and industry-leading coverage in search results by setting FrankNez Media as a preferred source.
