A federal judge on Monday denied Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan's attempt to overturn her conviction for obstructing federal immigration agents, rejecting her claim that judicial immunity shielded her from prosecution after she helped an illegal immigrant evade arrest inside a Wisconsin courthouse.
U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman issued a 39-page order dismissing Dugan's post-trial motion, as Newsmax reported. The ruling leaves Dugan facing sentencing, expected in June, after a jury found her guilty in December of interfering with officers who came to the Milwaukee County courthouse to take a man into custody.
Dugan's lawyer said they plan to appeal. But Adelman's order left little room for ambiguity about the legal question at the center of the case.
Adelman wrote:
"There was no basis for granting immunity simply because the indictment described conduct that could be considered 'part of a judge's job.'"
That one sentence captures the core of a case that has drawn national attention, a sitting state judge, entrusted with upholding the law, actively working to help a man dodge federal officers carrying out their duties.
The chain of events began on April 18, 2025, when immigration officers went to the Milwaukee County courthouse after learning that Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a 31-year-old man, had reentered the country illegally. Flores-Ruiz was scheduled to appear before Dugan for a hearing in a state battery case.
When agents arrived, Dugan confronted them outside her courtroom. She directed them to the office of Milwaukee County Chief Judge Carl Ashley, telling them their administrative warrant was not sufficient grounds to arrest Flores-Ruiz.
Then, after the agents left the area, Dugan led Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out through a private jury door.
Agents spotted Flores-Ruiz in a corridor, followed him outside the building, and arrested him after a foot chase. The Department of Homeland Security announced in November that Flores-Ruiz had been deported.
The episode is worth reading slowly. A judge, someone who swore an oath to the law, told federal officers their paperwork wasn't good enough, then personally escorted the subject of their warrant through a back exit. The only thing that prevented Flores-Ruiz from disappearing entirely was that agents caught up to him on foot outside the courthouse.
An FBI agent who led the investigation testified at Dugan's trial. Prosecutors worked to show that Dugan deliberately created an opening for Flores-Ruiz to escape federal custody. The defense countered that Dugan was simply trying to follow courthouse protocols.
The jury sided with prosecutors. Dugan was convicted in December of obstructing federal immigration agents. She resigned from the judiciary after the verdict.
The case fits a broader pattern of institutional actors treating immigration enforcement as optional, or worse, as something to be actively resisted. While the public debate over judicial power and its limits has intensified across the federal courts, Dugan's case stands out because the obstruction was not rhetorical or procedural. It was physical. She moved a person through a door to get him away from agents.
Dugan's post-conviction strategy rested on judicial immunity, the legal doctrine that generally protects judges from civil liability for actions taken in their official capacity. Her lawyers argued that because the indictment described conduct that could be considered part of a judge's duties, the conviction should be thrown out.
Adelman's 39-page order dismantled that argument. The ruling made clear that immunity does not extend to criminal obstruction of federal law enforcement, even when the person doing the obstructing happens to wear a robe.
This distinction matters. If a judge could invoke immunity every time misconduct overlapped with courtroom activity, the doctrine would become a blanket license for abuse. Adelman refused to open that door.
Dugan's attorney has signaled an appeal. That process could take months. But the federal court's reasoning is now on record, and it draws a firm line: judges are not above the law they are sworn to administer.
The broader question, how many officials across the country have quietly obstructed immigration enforcement without facing consequences, remains open. Dugan's case is unusual not because the conduct was rare, but because she was caught, charged, tried, and convicted. The system, for once, held someone accountable for institutional resistance to lawful federal authority.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Dugan is expected to be sentenced in June. The specific charges carry penalties that have not been detailed in available reporting, but the conviction itself has already ended her career on the bench.
Dugan resigned after the verdict. She went from presiding over cases in a Milwaukee County courtroom to awaiting her own sentencing date. The fall was steep, and entirely self-inflicted.
Meanwhile, the man she tried to shield, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, was deported. He had reentered the country illegally and was facing a state battery charge at the time of the courthouse incident. The agents Dugan confronted were doing exactly what the law required of them.
Cases like this test whether the rule of law applies equally to those who enforce it, those who break it, and those who sit in judgment of others. For years, critics have warned that officials who undermine lawful processes face too few consequences. Dugan's prosecution is a rare exception, a case where the system did not look the other way.
The appeal will test whether higher courts agree with Adelman's reasoning. But the facts of April 18, 2025, are not in dispute. A judge confronted federal agents, told them their warrant wasn't good enough, and then personally led their target out a back door. The jury heard the evidence and returned a guilty verdict.
Some in the legal community have framed Dugan as a defender of courthouse norms. Others see her as an example of how ideology can override duty. What is not debatable is that a federal jury weighed the evidence and concluded she broke the law, and now a federal judge has affirmed that conclusion in a detailed, 39-page ruling.
The fight over immigration enforcement in American courthouses is far from over. Across the country, local officials and judges continue to clash with federal authorities over the scope of enforcement inside public buildings. Dugan's case will likely be cited for years, by both sides, as either a cautionary tale or a rallying cry. The legal system, at least in this instance, treated obstruction as obstruction, regardless of who committed it.
As the federal courts continue to grapple with high-stakes legal confrontations over the boundaries of institutional power, the Dugan case offers a straightforward lesson. A judge who decided the law didn't apply to her found out otherwise.
When the people charged with upholding the law decide they're above it, accountability isn't optional. It's the whole point.
