In a federal trial in Milwaukee, a jury found Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan guilty of a felony obstruction charge after an April courthouse incident involving an undocumented defendant, Eduardo Flores‑Ruiz. The mixed verdict, delivered after roughly six hours of deliberation, cleared Dugan on a related count alleging she knowingly concealed the man from immigration authorities. The case has paused Dugan’s official duties; the Wisconsin Supreme Court temporarily suspended her following her arrest. Dugan, who pleaded not guilty, faces up to five years in prison; a sentencing date has not been set.
Key takeaways
- Judge Hannah Dugan was convicted on one felony obstruction count linked to a courthouse encounter on April 18, 2025; she was acquitted on a separate count alleging she concealed the undocumented man.
- The defendant in the underlying immigration matter, Eduardo Flores‑Ruiz (a Mexican national), was initially pursued by federal agents and later captured after a short foot chase outside the courthouse.
- The jury reached the mixed verdict after about six hours of deliberation, according to local reporting from ABC’s Milwaukee affiliate, WISN.
- Dugan faces a statutory maximum sentence of five years in prison for the obstruction conviction; no sentencing date has been announced.
- The defense argued the prosecution relied on assumptions and disputed the audio evidence; the defense called former Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett as a character witness.
- Federal prosecutors presented transcripts and audio they said showed Dugan acknowledging she would “get the heat” for directing the defendant to a side exit.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended Dugan from active duty, citing the public interest after her arrest.
Background
The incident at the center of the case occurred on April 18, 2025, when Department of Homeland Security agents were present at the Milwaukee County Circuit Court to arrest Eduardo Flores‑Ruiz on immigration charges while he was appearing on a local battery matter. Prosecutors say Judge Dugan engaged with federal agents in the hallway, then directed them away from her courtroom and escorted Flores‑Ruiz and his attorney out a non‑public door. Flores‑Ruiz was later taken into custody after a brief chase outside the courthouse and was ultimately sentenced to time served after pleading guilty to unlawful reentry, with DHS later confirming his deportation.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office indicted Dugan on two federal counts: one accusing her of obstructing official DHS removal proceedings and another alleging she knowingly concealed a person from immigration authorities. The indictment and the subsequent trial took place against a charged national backdrop of disputes over immigration enforcement and sanctuary practices. Judicial officers operate under strict ethical rules that bar willful interference with federal enforcement; prosecutors framed the indictment as enforcement of federal law against any individual, including a judge, who allegedly disrupts federal immigration operations.
Main event
The weeklong trial in Milwaukee featured recorded audio and transcripts introduced by prosecutors, who said those materials show Dugan telling her court reporter she would “get the heat” for showing the defendant a side exit. Prosecutors urged jurors to view the conduct as an intentional effort to frustrate federal agents working to execute a lawful arrest. Defense lawyers countered that the recordings were ambiguous, that the judge’s actions reflected courtroom management rather than criminal intent, and that the prosecution had layered assumptions onto routine courthouse movements.
On the fourth day of trial the defense rested and Judge Lynn Adelman denied a motion to dismiss the charges, allowing the case to go to the jury. After roughly six hours of deliberations, jurors returned a split verdict: guilty on the obstruction count and not guilty on the concealment count. Defense counsel Steve Biskupic told reporters he and the team were “obviously disappointed” and signaled plans for post‑trial briefing and further appeals, saying the mixed verdict raised legal questions about whether the two counts shared identical elements.
Dugan did not take the witness stand during the trial. The defense presented character witnesses, including former Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, who testified to Dugan’s reputation despite not being at the courthouse on April 18. Following the verdict, the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s earlier administrative decision to suspend Dugan from active judicial duties remained in effect, citing the public interest in temporarily relieving her of official responsibilities.
Analysis & implications
The conviction highlights tension between local court operations and federal immigration enforcement. If upheld on appeal, the obstruction verdict could crystallize legal boundaries about how judicial staff and judges may interact with federal arresting officers when those officers appear in state courthouses. Critics of the prosecution argue that policing routine courtroom logistics as criminal conduct risks chilling judges’ discretion to manage their dockets and safeguard courtroom safety.
Legally, the case will likely hinge on intent standards and the precise statutory elements the government must prove for obstruction versus concealment. The mixed verdict suggests the jury accepted that Dugan’s conduct met elements of obstruction but did not find sufficient proof beyond a reasonable doubt that she knowingly concealed Flores‑Ruiz from agents. That split may invite appellate courts to parse the indictment’s language and the overlap between counts, as defense counsel has already signaled through requests for post‑trial briefing.
Politically and institutionally, the matter feeds broader debates over sanctuary policies, local cooperation with federal immigration authorities, and accountability for public officials. The suspension by the Wisconsin Supreme Court removes Dugan from hearing cases while criminal proceedings proceed, reflecting a precautionary approach to preserving public confidence in the judiciary. If a custodial sentence is imposed and upheld, the case would be an uncommon instance of a sitting judge convicted of a federal felony tied to immigration enforcement activities.
Comparison & data
| Charge | Indicted Count | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| Obstruction of federal agents in removal proceedings | Count One | Guilty |
| Knowingly concealing a person from immigration authorities | Count Two | Not guilty |
The table summarizes the indictment’s two counts and the jury’s mixed outcome. The jury’s differentiation between the two allegations underscores the narrow statutory nuances prosecutors must prove for each offense. The roughly six hours of deliberation indicates the jury reached a careful, if divided, assessment rather than a unanimous rush to judgment. For the defendant in the immigration case, federal court records show Flores‑Ruiz pleaded guilty to unlawful reentry and was credited with time served before deportation.
Reactions & quotes
Legal observers and local officials offered immediate, contrasting responses. Prosecutors emphasized accountability for alleged interference with federal law enforcement, while the defense framed the prosecution as unjust and premised on doubtful assumptions. After the verdict, Dugan’s attorney stressed that the mixed result raised legal issues the defense intended to pursue in further filings.
“We are obviously disappointed in the outcome, and the mixed verdict is the big thing from the defense perspective,”
Steve Biskupic, defense counsel
Separately, prosecutors pointed to the audio and transcript evidence in court as central to proving intent. The recordings quoted in court were used to portray the judge as aware that directing the defendant to a side exit could thwart agents attempting to execute an arrest.
“[She said she would] ‘get the heat’ for showing the side exit,”
Prosecutor, federal transcript evidence
Public reaction on social and local platforms reflected the polarized national debate over immigration enforcement and local discretion, with some calling for full accountability and others warning about prosecutorial overreach in courtroom management matters.
Unconfirmed
- Whether Dugan’s direction to the side exit was intended solely to manage courtroom flow rather than to impede federal agents remains contested by the parties.
- Defense claims about audio clarity and transcript accuracy were raised at trial but not resolved to the jurors’ unanimous satisfaction.
- Any internal courthouse communications about the incident beyond what was introduced at trial have not been publicly disclosed and remain unverified.
Bottom line
The jury’s split verdict in Milwaukee marks a rare criminal conviction of a sitting judge on an obstruction count tied to an immigration arrest attempt, while acquitting her on the related concealment charge. The outcome underscores how closely the law scrutinizes the intent behind actions that intersect with federal enforcement, especially when exercised by public officials within a courthouse.
Looking ahead, expect the defense to pursue post‑trial motions and appeals that challenge legal theories and evidentiary interpretations; appellate review could clarify how obstruction statutes apply to interactions between judges and federal agents. Regardless of final appellate outcomes, the case will remain a reference point in discussions about local‑federal relations on immigration enforcement and the limits of judicial discretion in court operations.
Sources
- ABC News (national news outlet reporting; original article)
- WISN (local Milwaukee affiliate reporting)
- U.S. Department of Justice (federal agency; official)
- Wisconsin Court System (state judiciary; official)
- Reuters (news agency; photo and courtroom coverage)