On December 12, 2025, the federal trial of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan commenced following a grand jury indictment accusing her of obstructing a legal proceeding and concealing an individual to prevent arrest. These charges stem from an event on April 18, 2025, when immigration officials attempted to apprehend Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican national facing misdemeanor domestic assault charges in Dugan's courtroom.
According to the indictment and accompanying criminal complaint, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrived at the Milwaukee County Courthouse to arrest Flores-Ruiz for unlawful presence in the United States. Prosecutors contend that Judge Dugan provided misleading information to the ICE agents by stating a judicial warrant was required for such an arrest and instructed them to vacate the public hallway and proceed to the chief judge's office.
During the time ICE agents were redirected, Dugan allegedly discussed Flores-Ruiz's case off the record, after which she directed him and his defense attorney to exit the courtroom via a non-public jury door. The judge also reportedly told the defense attorney that future court proceedings could be attended remotely through Zoom. Despite these actions, agents encountered Flores-Ruiz and his counsel in a public hallway, pursued Flores-Ruiz outdoors, and arrested him. He has since been deported.
Judge Dugan has entered a plea of not guilty to both felony and misdemeanor charges. Her legal team has declined direct comment but issued a statement affirming her innocence and expressing confidence she will be cleared in court. In court filings, Dugan's attorneys emphasize that courthouse policy on immigration enforcement was unsettled at the time, and she was following draft guidelines issued by the chief judge recommending ICE officers be referred to a supervisory official before taking any actions.
Outside legal experts highlight that the focus of the case lies in determining Judge Dugan's intent during these events. Criminal defense attorney Tony Cotton notes that if Dugan's purpose was to inform ICE about required procedures and to reduce courtroom confrontation by directing Flores-Ruiz to exit discreetly, this could impact assessments of her intent to obstruct. Similarly, former federal prosecutor and law professor Laurie Levenson observes that the critical question is whether Dugan was attempting to hide an individual or merely managing her courtroom and attempting to prevent agency interference.
Levenson further contextualizes the case within the broader political shift in immigration enforcement. Historically, courthouses were generally regarded as protected spaces where ICE arrests were avoided to prevent discouraging court participation. This understanding has changed notably since President Trump's administration increased immigration enforcement efforts, including within courthouses.
The Department of Homeland Security and President Trump have publicly endorsed the prosecution, with DHS branding Dugan an "activist judge" in social media remarks. In response, Dugan has enlisted prominent criminal defense attorneys in Wisconsin and retained Paul Clement, a former solicitor general with Republican ties, likely to prepare for potential appeals.
This case is not without precedent. In 2018, a Massachusetts judge faced similar federal charges for allegedly enabling someone to evade ICE by exiting a courthouse through a back door. Those charges were eventually dismissed by the Biden Justice Department, which instead opted for referral to a judicial conduct body.
As the Milwaukee trial proceeds, a federal jury will ultimately decide whether Judge Dugan's actions constituted unlawful obstruction or a legitimate judicial exercise amid complex and evolving courthouse and immigration enforcement policies.