Wisconsin Judge Convicted of Obstruction Raises Hard Questions About Power, Process, and the Rule of Law

By Michael Phillips | WIBayNews and Father & Co.

A federal jury’s conviction of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan on a felony obstruction charge has sent shockwaves through Wisconsin’s legal community—and reopened a national debate about judicial power, immigration enforcement, and whether personal convictions can ever justify bending the rules inside a courtroom.

The verdict, delivered December 18 after roughly six hours of deliberation, found Dugan guilty of obstruction of justice, a felony carrying up to five years in prison. Jurors acquitted her of a related misdemeanor charge of concealing a person to prevent arrest. No sentencing date has been set, and Dugan’s attorneys say they will appeal.

What the Jury Found

According to trial evidence, the incident occurred on April 18, 2025, when federal immigration agents waited outside Dugan’s courtroom to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an undocumented immigrant with a prior deportation and new misdemeanor battery charges.

Prosecutors argued that Judge Dugan:

• Confronted federal agents and questioned the validity of their administrative warrant
• Directed them away from the courtroom to the chief judge’s office
• Handled Flores-Ruiz’s case off the record
• Approved a remote appearance for a future hearing
• Escorted Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out a private jury door

Agents later spotted Flores-Ruiz, pursued him outside the courthouse, and arrested him after a brief foot chase. He ultimately pleaded guilty to illegal reentry and was deported.

A key piece of evidence was courtroom audio in which Dugan stated she would “take the heat” for her actions—language the prosecution said demonstrated intent.

Accountability or Overreach?

U.S. Attorney Brad Schimel framed the case narrowly, insisting it was not political but about accountability: no judge, he argued, has the authority to interfere with lawful arrests. “This was about a single bad day,” Schimel said, “but it was a deliberate one.”

Dugan’s defense painted a different picture. Her attorneys argued that immigration policies surrounding courthouse arrests were unclear, shifting, and inconsistently applied—and that Dugan believed she was following courthouse protocol, not obstructing justice. They also pointed to the split verdict as evidence the jury struggled with intent.

Still, for many Wisconsinites, the conviction underscores a basic principle: judges wield immense power, and with that power comes an obligation to remain strictly neutral arbiters of the law.

Why This Matters Beyond Immigration

While national coverage has focused heavily on immigration politics, the implications reach much further—especially for parents and families navigating the court system.

At its core, this case raises uncomfortable but necessary questions:

• What happens when a judge’s personal beliefs override procedural fairness?
• How much discretion is too much discretion?
• And how can ordinary citizens trust courts if judges selectively decide which laws to honor?

For parents involved in custody, protective-order, or family-court proceedings, consistency and transparency aren’t abstract ideals—they determine livelihoods, access to children, and constitutional rights. Any perception that judges can operate “off the record,” even for causes they believe are just, erodes public confidence in the system as a whole.

A Precedent-Setting Moment

This appears to be the first time a sitting state judge has been federally convicted for obstructing immigration enforcement, making it a landmark case regardless of where one stands politically.

Under Wisconsin law, a felony conviction is likely to disqualify Dugan from holding judicial office. She has already been suspended with pay by the Wisconsin Supreme Court pending the outcome.

Appeals will likely focus on intent, judicial immunity, and the murky policy environment surrounding courthouse arrests. But the jury’s message was clear: the bench is not above the law.

A Sobering Reminder

For concerned citizens across Wisconsin, this case is less about partisan victory laps and more about reaffirming guardrails. Courts function only when everyone—from defendants to judges—plays by the same rules.

As emotions run high on all sides, the Dugan verdict stands as a cautionary tale: good intentions do not excuse bad process, and the rule of law depends on restraint as much as compassion.