Milwaukee Judge Found Guilty of Obstructing ICE Arrest of Illegal Immigrant
Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan faces serious consequences after a federal jury found her guilty of obstructing an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrest. This conviction stands out due to its rarity, as it involves a sitting judge directly interfering in immigration enforcement—an act that raises significant questions about judicial conduct and accountability.
The incident at the heart of this case occurred on April 18, 2023, when ICE agents attempted to detain Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican national with a history of violent crimes and prior deportations. Dugan not only rescheduled his court hearing away from public record but also directed both Flores-Ruiz and his attorney through a secure door while diverting ICE agents. Her actions allowed Flores-Ruiz to initially evade arrest, although he was eventually captured after a chase outside the courthouse.
During the trial, Assistant U.S. Attorney Kelley Brown Watzka posed a provocative question to jurors: “What happens when someone with the highest duty to uphold the law decides it doesn’t apply to her?” This statement echoes the fundamental principle that judges are expected to uphold the law above all else. Dugan was further implicated by her own words, recorded during the trial: “I’ll do it. I’ll get heat.” These comments suggest she understood the implications of her actions, lending credence to the prosecution’s argument that she knowingly obstructed a lawful arrest.
Flores-Ruiz’s background compounds the severity of the case against Dugan. After re-entering the U.S. illegally following his 2013 deportation, he faced multiple charges, including domestic violence. The Department of Homeland Security emphasized that Flores-Ruiz was a significant public safety threat. Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin remarked after his recapture that Dugan’s obstruction was an extreme example of judicial overreach and disregard for public safety.
Dugan, who has served as a judge since 2016, faced suspension while awaiting trial, which began after formal charges were filed in spring 2025. Prosecutors framed her actions as an abuse of judicial power, claiming she undermined essential law enforcement operations within a courthouse—a place intended to uphold justice.
Witnesses, including fellow judges and federal agents, provided testimony that painted a troubling picture of Dugan’s decisions. Judge Kirstela Cervera noted Dugan’s admission that she may have put herself “in the doghouse” for helping Flores-Ruiz avoid arrest. Such acknowledgments suggest an awareness of the inappropriateness of her conduct during the events in question.
On the other side, Dugan’s defense argued that her actions did not constitute obstruction and were within the gray areas of courthouse policy regarding ICE operations. Defense attorney Jason Luczak raised doubt about whether Dugan would jeopardize her career for the sake of a criminal defendant, arguing that the prosecution distorted a simple series of events into a conspiracy outlined in minutes. However, the jury ultimately found the evidence compelling enough to convict her.
Dugan’s case has drawn notable attention and sparked debate regarding the intersection of local judicial authority and federal immigration enforcement. Critics of the ruling argue that it represents a politically motivated attack on autonomy within the judiciary, largely citing perceived overreach under the Trump administration. In contrast, the prosecution underscored that judges must not use their positions to undermine legal processes, particularly concerning individuals identified as threats to community safety.
The felony conviction carries a maximum punishment of five years in federal prison, while the misdemeanor adds another year. Legal experts suggest that significant time behind bars is unlikely, though the felony conviction will likely end Dugan’s career and may lead to disbarment. The gravity of her actions, combined with the legal framework established for such offenses, signifies that the judicial system holds its members accountable, regardless of political narratives.
Social media reactions ranged widely, with viral posts emphasizing the trial’s implications for immigration enforcement and judicial integrity. This case serves as a critical point in a broader national discussion about how local judges can and should interact with federal law enforcement, particularly on contentious issues like immigration.
As the case exemplifies, the consequences of obstructing federal law enforcement are severe. The judicial system, while intended to be a bastion of fairness, must grapple with the actions of those who may distort that premise in the name of personal ideology. The trial stands as a strong reminder that those sworn to uphold the law must remain loyal to their responsibilities or risk facing serious repercussions.
Sentencing for Judge Dugan is anticipated later this year. Until then, the outcome of this case echoes a stark warning for public officials: actions aimed at obstructing lawful processes, even if motivated by perceived compassion, can lead to lasting ramifications when they conflict with established federal law.
"*" indicates required fields
