Wisconsin judge found guilty of obstruction in immigrant case; advocates call for due-process review

MADISON, Wis. — Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan was found guilty on felony obstruction for helping a Mexican immigrant evade federal officers, a verdict that immediately drew attention to concerns about judicial independence and the politics surrounding immigration enforcement. After a four-day trial and six hours of deliberation, a jury convicted Dugan on the obstruction charge and acquitted her of a related misdemeanor concealment count. She faces potential prison time, with a maximum sentence of five years, and no sentencing date had been set as of Friday morning.

Jurors also found that Dugan did not commit the misdemeanor concealment, a finding that has kept the case from a single, sweeping judgment on her conduct. The verdict arrives amid a highly charged debate about the balance between enforcing federal immigration policy and safeguarding the independence and discretion of state judges. The case centers on the events surrounding 31-year-old Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, who had reentered the United States illegally and was set to appear before Dugan for a state battery hearing at the Milwaukee County courthouse when federal agents encountered him outside the courtroom.

In a swift sequence of actions that became the core of the obstruction case, prosecutors argued that Dugan confronted federal agents outside her courtroom, helped Flores-Ruiz and his attorney exit through a private jury door, and then allowed them to evade police before Flores-Ruiz was chased down and arrested in the corridor. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security later said Flores-Ruiz had been deported in November prior to these events. The verdict reflects a juror decision that Dugan’s actions crossed the line into obstructing federal enforcement, even if her motivations were tied to a belief that the immigrant’s appearance in her courtroom warranted special consideration.

The case has become a flashpoint in the broader confrontation over immigration policy. The Trump administration, which filed the charges, framed Dugan as an example of a judge who acted outside the bounds of the law to assist someone in evading federal removal. U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche publicly praised the verdict on X, saying that nobody is above the law, “not even judges.” In contrast, Democrats and civil-rights groups argued that the case has become a probe of political forces targeting judges who take independent stances on immigration enforcement.

Federal prosecutors, including former Wisconsin Attorney General and judge Brad Schimel, pressed for a verdict that would reaffirm the principle that laws apply equally to all, regardless of status or position. “You don’t have to agree with immigration enforcement policy to see this was wrong,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Kelly Brown Watzka told the jury in closing arguments. “You just have to agree the law applies equally to everyone.” Prosecutors insisted the case was about following the law on a day when the defendant’s personal beliefs did not override legal duties.

Dugan’s defense team immediately signaled plans to appeal, arguing that the jury’s verdict of guilt on one charge and acquittal on another reflected a complex interpretation of the facts. Steve Biskupic, Dugan’s lead attorney, said he was disappointed and suggested that the jury could not reconcile what he described as virtually the same elements across the charges. He argued that the decision would be examined by higher courts that could address constitutional questions raised by the case and the broader implications for judicial authority and federal overreach.

The case has drawn a coalition of 13 advocacy groups, including Common Cause Wisconsin and the League of Women Voters Wisconsin, who warned that a sustained review by higher courts is necessary to consider due-process concerns and the potential chilling effect on judicial independence. They stressed that the case raises important questions about how federal immigration enforcement interactions should be navigated in state courthouses and whether a judge’s decision to help a person in need crosses lawful boundaries.

Dugan’s status remains unresolved. She was suspended as a judge after being charged, and the Wisconsin Constitution bars convicted felons from holding public office. The Wisconsin Judicial Commission declined to comment on how the verdict would affect ongoing disciplinary proceedings, and no immediate steps were announced. The commission’s response, or lack thereof, underscores the tension between criminal proceedings and the disciplinary processes that govern judges in the state.

The incident that triggered the charges occurred on April 18 when immigration officers went to the Milwaukee County courthouse after learning Flores-Ruiz had reentered the country illegally and was scheduled to appear before Dugan. According to authorities, Dugan confronted the agents outside her courtroom and, after they had left, escorted Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out through a private door used for jurors. Agents later spotted Flores-Ruiz in the corridor, pursuing him outside where he was arrested following a foot chase. DHS later said Flores-Ruiz had been deported in November, highlighting the tension between immigration enforcement efforts and courtroom proceedings.

Observers say the case has inflamed political tensions surrounding immigration enforcement policy and judges’ roles in enforcing or interpreting those policies. While proponents of strict enforcement welcomed the verdict as a demonstration of the rule of law, opponents warned that the case could be used to pressure judges and undermine public confidence in judicial independence. The trial’s outcome may influence ongoing debates about how federal and state authorities coordinate on immigration matters and how courts handle cases involving individuals who are subject to removal orders.

As Dugan’s legal team pursues an appeal, the case remains a focal point of the debate over the boundaries of judicial authority in the context of federal immigration policy. The next steps could involve appellate review of the obstruction conviction, potential retrials on any related charges, or other procedural developments as the court system addresses questions raised by the jury’s split verdict and the broader constitutional questions raised by this high-profile case.