Hannah Dugan, Wisconsin Judge Convicted of Obstructing Immigration Agents, Resigns

Lead

On Jan. 3, 2026, Hannah C. Dugan, a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, submitted her resignation to Governor Tony Evers after a federal jury last month convicted her on a felony obstruction charge. The conviction arose from an incident in which federal agents attempted to arrest an undocumented immigrant and prosecutors say Dugan intervened. Lawmakers in the Republican-controlled Wisconsin Legislature had moved toward impeachment, and Dugan said she was stepping down to avoid a partisan battle over the court. Her resignation is reported to take effect immediately; she faces up to five years in prison but, as a first-time offender, is widely expected to receive minimal incarceration.

Key Takeaways

• Hannah C. Dugan resigned her Milwaukee County judgeship in a letter to Gov. Tony Evers on Jan. 3, 2026, with the resignation effective immediately.
• A federal jury convicted Dugan in December 2025 of obstructing federal officers who were attempting to arrest an undocumented immigrant; she was acquitted of a related charge of concealing a person from arrest.
• Under federal law, the obstruction conviction carries a maximum sentence of five years; observers expect little to no prison time given her lack of prior convictions.
• The Wisconsin Legislature, controlled by Republicans, had signaled plans to pursue impeachment, a process Dugan cited as further politicizing the judiciary in her resignation rationale.
• First elected to the Milwaukee County Circuit Court in 2016, Dugan’s status as a convicted felon likely renders her ineligible to hold judicial office under the Wisconsin Constitution.
• Her lawyers supplied the resignation letter to news organizations and have declined additional public comment as of Jan. 3, 2026.

Background

Hannah C. Dugan, elected to the Milwaukee County Circuit Court in 2016, built a judicial career that placed her on a bench overseeing a busy urban docket. The underlying incident that led to federal charges involved federal immigration enforcement agents attempting to arrest an undocumented individual; prosecutors said Dugan interfered with that attempt. The case came at a politically fraught moment in Wisconsin, where immigration enforcement and judicial independence have been contested issues across party lines. Republican lawmakers in the state legislature seized on the conviction as grounds for impeachment proceedings, framing the matter as misconduct incompatible with judicial office.

Federal prosecution of a sitting state judge is unusual and raised constitutional and institutional questions among legal observers. The criminal charges were tried in federal court in Milwaukee in December 2025; the jury returned a guilty verdict on the obstruction count and acquitted Dugan on a lesser concealing charge. Because state constitutional provisions bar convicted felons from holding judicial office, Dugan’s legal status after conviction presented both a criminal and a governance problem for Wisconsin courts. Her lawyers and supporters have argued that the prosecution and potential legislative removal threaten judicial independence, while critics emphasize rule-of-law and accountability concerns.

Main Event

The criminal case against Dugan centered on a single episode in which federal agents sought to detain an undocumented person and prosecutors said the judge took actions that knowingly impeded the officers. During the December 2025 trial in federal court, prosecutors presented testimony and evidence they said showed Dugan’s conduct met the elements of obstruction. The defense denied criminal intent and portrayed the judge’s actions as lawful or, at worst, a mistaken exercise of judgment; jurors convicted on one count but declined to convict on the related charge of concealing a person from arrest.

After the verdict, Wisconsin’s political branches moved quickly. Republican lawmakers publicly called for Dugan’s resignation and prepared impeachment measures to remove her from office if she stayed. Facing the twin pressures of a federal sentence and an imminent legislative process, Dugan’s lawyers delivered a resignation letter to Governor Tony Evers on Jan. 3, 2026; the letter framed her departure as intended to preserve the functioning of the branch and spare Milwaukee County a protracted partisan fight over the bench.

Prosecutors have noted the seriousness of obstructing federal immigration enforcement, arguing that interference with agents’ duties undermines public safety and the rule of law. Defense attorneys countered that Dugan’s actions did not satisfy the statutory standard for obstruction or that any error was not criminal in nature. Sentencing has not yet occurred; legal analysts expect the judge’s lack of a criminal record to be a significant factor in the court’s penalty decision.

Analysis & Implications

The resignation closes one immediate institutional question — who will sit in Milwaukee County Branch 31 — but it leaves unresolved legal and constitutional issues. If the conviction stands on appeal, Wisconsin’s constitutional bar on felons holding office could preclude Dugan from ever returning to the bench, and the state must follow statutory and administrative steps to fill the vacancy. Politically, the episode reinforces sharp partisan divisions over how courts and judges should interact with federal immigration authorities and how accountability mechanisms should operate when judicial actors are accused of wrongdoing.

For the judiciary, the case is a cautionary example of how criminal charges against judges can strain public confidence in courts. Supporters of Dugan have framed the prosecution as overreach that threatens judicial independence; critics emphasize that judges, like other public officials, are subject to the law and must face consequences for obstruction. The balance between deterring improper judicial intervention and protecting judges from politically motivated prosecutions will be a continuing debate in state and federal legal circles.

At the national level, the outcome may inform how prosecutors and legislatures handle future allegations involving sitting judges. Sentencing and any appellate rulings will shape precedent on what conduct amounts to obstruction when carried out by a judicial officer. Meanwhile, the local effect on Milwaukee’s court calendar and litigants is immediate: the vacancy will require appointment or election procedures that could influence the court’s composition for years.

Comparison & Data

The table above places the core factual markers of the case in context: Dugan’s tenure on the bench since 2016, the December 2025 conviction, and the statutory maximum sentence of five years for the obstruction count. Practically, federal sentencing guidelines and a defendant’s lack of prior record will heavily influence the actual term imposed. The administrative consequence under Wisconsin law — likely disqualification from holding judicial office as a felon — adds a governance dimension separate from the criminal penalty.

Reactions & Quotes

In her resignation letter, Dugan framed the prosecution and pending political process as a threat to judicial independence and said she did not want the court’s functioning to be decided by partisan conflict.

Hannah C. Dugan / Resignation letter (provided by counsel)

Republican lawmakers in the Wisconsin Legislature publicly urged removal after the conviction, arguing that the verdict demonstrated conduct incompatible with judicial duties.

Wisconsin legislative leaders (public statements)

Legal observers noted the case raises difficult questions about where accountability ends and political pressure begins when a sitting judge faces criminal prosecution.

Legal scholar commentary (academic analysis)

Unconfirmed

• Whether federal sentencing will result in any term of imprisonment remains unresolved; observers expect minimal time but the court’s final decision is pending.
• It is not yet confirmed how the Wisconsin Legislature will adjust or suspend its planned impeachment steps now that Dugan has resigned.
• Any appeal of the conviction has not been filed publicly as of Jan. 3, 2026; the timing and grounds for potential appeals are therefore uncertain.

Bottom Line

Judge Hannah C. Dugan’s resignation on Jan. 3, 2026, follows a December 2025 federal conviction for obstructing officers during an attempted immigration arrest and removes an immediate flashpoint from Wisconsin’s political calendar. The move avoids a likely impeachment in the Republican-led Legislature but does not resolve the criminal case’s legal aftermath, including sentencing and any appeals. Practically, the vacancy in Milwaukee County Branch 31 must now be filled through state procedures, a decision that will shape local judicial operations.

Longer term, the case will be watched as a precedent about how the justice system treats judges accused of intervening in law enforcement activities. The interplay of criminal law, judicial ethics, and partisan politics in this episode underscores broader tensions in governance: ensuring judicial accountability while protecting courts from being drawn into political fights. For Wisconsin and observers elsewhere, the next chapters — sentencing, possible appeals and the administrative replacement process — will determine the lasting legal and institutional consequences.

Sources

• The New York Times — news report (article summarizing trial, resignation, and political reaction)