Wisconsin Judge Resigns After Federal Conviction for Immigration Obstruction

(MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN) — Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan resigned from the bench on January 3, 2026, a day after a federal conviction for obstructing an immigration arrest in her courtroom.

Dugan stepped down after a jury found her guilty on December 18, 2025 of felony obstruction of a federal proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 1505. She was acquitted of a separate misdemeanor charge of concealing an individual.

In her resignation letter to Governor Tony Evers, Dugan said she remained committed to an independent judiciary but described the legal proceedings as “too big of a distraction” for the court.

The courthouse incident and timeline

The case centered on events on April 18, 2025, when Dugan presided over a domestic battery case involving Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican national alleged to be in the U.S. illegally. Federal immigration agents from ICE were reportedly waiting in the hallway outside the courtroom.

Key actions described in the prosecution timeline:

• Dugan confronted the agents, questioned their warrant, and directed them to the Chief Judge’s office.
• While the agents were away, she escorted Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out of the courtroom through a restricted “jury door” into a non-public area.
• Agents later spotted Flores-Ruiz leaving the building; a foot chase followed and he was apprehended despite the judge’s intervention.

The FBI arrested Dugan on April 25, 2025, elevating the courthouse confrontation into a federal prosecution.

Statements from federal officials

Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Brad Schimel linked the episode to public safety concerns after the verdict:

“A judge holds a high position of public trust, and Judge Dugan’s actions violated that trust. [The] Defendant’s actions provided an opportunity for a wanted subject to flee outside the courthouse, which led to a dangerous foot chase.”

FBI Director Kash Patel wrote on social media the day of the arrest:

“No one is above the law. This judge’s actions to shield an accused violent criminal illegal alien from justice is shocking and shameful. Judge’s obstruction created increased danger to the public.”

The Department of Homeland Security also publicized Flores-Ruiz’s removal and sharply criticized Dugan. In a DHS press release dated November 14, 2025, DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said:

“Judge Hannah Dugan’s actions to obstruct this violent criminal’s arrest take ‘activist judge’ to a whole new meaning. Thanks to the brave men and women of ICE law enforcement, this criminal is OUT of our country. If you are here illegally and break the law, we will hunt you down, arrest you, and remove you from our country. That’s a promise.”

Deportation and DHS characterization

• DHS reported that Flores-Ruiz was deported to Mexico on November 13, 2025.
• The department described him as a “violent criminal” with a history that allegedly included charges of strangulation, suffocation, and battery.
• Officials said Flores-Ruiz was sentenced to time served for illegal reentry.

The DHS press release was titled: “ICE Announces Removal of Violent Criminal Illegal Alien After Milwaukee Judge Arrested for Obstructing His Arrest Earlier This Year.”

Legal significance and prosecution theory

Dugan, who had served as a judge since 2016, became the first state judge federally convicted for interfering with immigration enforcement in their courtroom. The prosecution’s theory focused on a narrow but consequential legal claim:

• That judicial immunity—the usual deference afforded to judges for their official acts—does not protect judges from criminal prosecution when actions are “extra-judicial” or administrative acts intended to facilitate the escape of a suspect.
• Specifically, the government argued that rerouting officers and using a restricted exit were not protected judicial acts and could constitute obstruction under federal law.

The trial thus tested the limits of judicial conduct when immigration enforcement operates inside state courthouses.

Broader context: courthouse enforcement and local-federal tension

The trial unfolded against broader debates over courthouse immigration enforcement:

• Nationwide, some local officials and immigrant advocates oppose aggressive ICE courthouse arrests, arguing they undermine trust in the justice system.
• Federal authorities and the prosecution framed the case as an example of the Trump administration’s policy to prioritize “courthouse arrests” and to pursue criminal charges when local officials interfere.
• At trial, some Milwaukee judges referenced “safe haven” protocols as part of a defensive posture, while federal lawyers emphasized federal supremacy in immigration enforcement.

This produced a clear state-versus-federal conflict when immigration enforcement intersects with local court operations.

Consequences, sentencing, and administrative impact

• Dugan’s conviction carries potential penalties of up to five years in federal prison and a fine of up to $250,000.
• Sentencing has not been scheduled; no date has been provided.
• Her resignation on January 3, 2026 removed her from the bench before any sentencing hearing and left Milwaukee County without a sitting judge who had served nearly a decade.

Federal officials highlighted the practical effects attributed to her conduct: agents diverted from the hallway, a defendant moved through a non-public door, and a chase that ended outside the courthouse — all factors the government said increased public danger.

Public record and official sources

Federal statements were made public through official channels:

• DHS issued its statement in a press release dated November 14, 2025.
• The U.S. Attorney’s Office released comments after the December 18, 2025 verdict.

Publicly available federal pages for the agencies include the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Attorney’s Office – Eastern District of Wisconsin.