On Wednesday, a pretrial hearing unfolded for Judge Hannah Dugan, who stands accused of aiding an illegal immigrant in dodging arrest by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This case has garnered significant attention, as a conviction could lead to a prison sentence of up to six years. With the trial set to begin on December 15, the stakes have never been higher.
Dugan, arrested by the FBI back in April 2025, faces serious allegations following an incident in her own courtroom. On that day, federal agents, including those from ICE and the FBI, were ready to detain Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, who was present to face misdemeanor charges linked to domestic violence. Reports indicate that Dugan allegedly directed him to leave through a side door, effectively allowing him to evade the agents as they executed their warrant. This incident has raised questions about courtroom integrity and a judge’s role in upholding the law.
The prosecution plans to bring in a substantial number of witnesses—28 in total—to testify about the events of that day. These witnesses include law enforcement and court personnel who were present during the encounter. University of Wisconsin Law School professor John Gross noted the likely focus of the prosecution’s case: testimony centered around Dugan’s actions. “It sounds like they’re going to call all the law enforcement agents, all of the court personnel, any other witnesses who were in the hallway,” Gross explained. This sharp focus on testimony from multiple sources aims to demonstrate a clear narrative that supports the charges.
As preparations for the trial develop, jury selection is a point of particular interest. So far, 34 jurors have been dismissed due to potential bias, leaving 90 candidates for the pool. The case has drawn widespread media coverage, particularly because of its ties to immigration enforcement—a topic that evokes strong feelings among the public. Gross further emphasized the challenge presented to the selection process: “This case has gotten a lot of press. It involves immigration enforcement, which is an issue that people tend to feel strongly about.”
Dugan has pleaded not guilty and has not been hearing cases since the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended her following the arrest. Her legal team rejected a plea deal offered by prosecutors, suggesting a firm commitment to contesting the charges. A motion to dismiss the case, filed over the summer, was also thrown out, pushing the proceedings forward without delay.
Federal prosecutors have charged Dugan with felony obstruction and a misdemeanor for concealing an individual to prevent arrest. Such serious allegations, especially against someone in her position, bring to light discussions about the responsibilities of judges and the potential consequences of their actions.
As the trial date approaches, opinions continue to fragment along lines of public sentiment regarding immigration and the judicial system. Dugan’s case serves not only as a legal challenge for her but also as a pivotal moment that could influence perceptions of the judiciary’s relationship with immigration enforcement. The upcoming proceedings will undoubtedly shed light on these critical issues while examining the alleged misconduct of a sitting judge.
"*" indicates required fields
