Judge Convicted of Obstructing Federal Agents Amid Trump Immigration Crackdown

On Thursday, a jury in Wisconsin found Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan guilty of obstructing federal authorities, a win for President Donald Trump as his immigration crackdown continues.

The verdict, delivered after six hours of deliberation, convicted Dugan of a felony obstruction charge but acquitted her of a misdemeanor concealment count. She faces up to five years in prison on the obstruction charge, though no sentencing date has been set.

The Verdict

The jury’s decision marked a rare conviction of a judge for obstructing law enforcement. Dugan was found guilty of a felony obstruction charge, carrying a maximum sentence of five years, while the misdemeanor concealment charge was dismissed.

The six‑hour deliberation underscored the seriousness of the case. Although she was acquitted on the lesser charge, prosecutors still seek to hold her accountable for the obstruction of federal agents.

Background

FBI agents arrested Dugan on April 25 in the parking lot of the Milwaukee County Courthouse. The arrest followed a series of events involving 31‑year‑old Eduardo Flores‑Ruiz, who had reentered the United States illegally and was scheduled to appear before Dugan in a state battery case.

Immigration authorities had learned of Flores‑Ruiz’s status on April 18 and positioned agents in the corridor outside Dugan’s courtroom. When Dugan entered, she confronted the agents, claiming their administrative warrant was insufficient and directing them to the chief judge’s office.

While the agents were away, Dugan spoke off‑record with Flores‑Ruiz’s attorney, told the defendant he could attend his next hearing via Zoom, and led both of them out through a private jury door. Agents later spotted Flores‑Ruiz in the corridor, pursued him, and arrested him after a brief foot chase. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced in November that Flores‑Ruiz had been deported.

Prosecutorial Evidence

Federal prosecutors relied on an FBI affidavit and a grand jury indictment to build their case. They presented audio recordings from Dugan’s courtroom in which she told her court reporter that she would “take the heat” for leading Flores‑Ruiz out the back.

The prosecution argued that Dugan’s actions—directing agents to the chief judge’s office and then escorting Flores‑Ruiz through a private exit—created an opening that allowed the defendant to escape arrest.

Dugan’s attorneys countered that she was following courthouse protocols that required staff to report immigration agents to their supervisors. They maintained that she did not intend to obstruct the arrest team.

Political Reactions

The case has inflamed tensions over Trump’s immigration crackdown. The administration branded Dugan an activist judge, while Democrats accused the administration of trying to make an example of her to blunt judicial opposition to the operation.

U.S. Attorney Brad Schimel denied that the case was political. He urged the public to accept the verdict peacefully, noting that courthouse arrests are safer because people are screened for weapons. Schimel said, “Some have sought to make this about a larger political battle,” adding, “While this case is serious for all involved, it is ultimately about a single day, a single bad day, in a public courthouse. The defendant is certainly not evil. Nor is she a martyr for some greater cause.”

U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche praised the verdict on X, stating that nobody is above the law, even judges.

Sentencing

Dugan faces up to five years in prison on the obstruction charge, but a sentencing date has not yet been announced. The court has not set a deadline for when she will be sentenced.

Key Takeaways

• Judge Hannah Dugan was convicted of obstruction but acquitted of concealment.
• She faces up to five years in prison on the obstruction charge.
• The case highlights tensions over Trump’s immigration crackdown and the role of federal agents in courthouses.

The conviction underscores that even judges are subject to federal law and that the administration’s immigration enforcement efforts continue to face legal challenges.