Judge Convicted for Obstructing ICE in Courthouse Migrant Arrest

A federal jury in Milwaukee convicted a Wisconsin state judge of obstructing ICE officers—a first-of-its-kind verdict as courts adjust to President Donald Trump’s aggressive immigration enforcement policies.

The novel conviction means Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan faces up to five years in prison for intentionally interfering with a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrest of a migrant who appeared in her courtroom as a defendant on domestic violence charges. She was convicted on felony obstruction, but acquitted of unlawfully concealing a migrant.

“While we are disappointed in today’s outcome, the failure of the prosecution to secure convictions on both counts demonstrates the opportunity we have to clear Judge Dugan’s name and show she did nothing wrong in this matter,” Dugan’s legal team said in a statement.

Dugan is expected to appeal, raising arguments about whether state judges are legally required to aid federal immigration officers, and whether judges have criminal immunity for the actions they take in their courtrooms.

The US Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

“This case is far from over. Substantial legal and constitutional issues remain unresolved, and they are exactly the kinds of questions appellate courts are meant to address,” said said Norm Eisen, founder of Democracy Defenders Fund and one of the lawyers representing a group of former state and federal judges urging dismissal.

ICE Arrests

The four-day trial offered a unique glimpse inside a bustling state court, with testimony from judges and staff describing how shifting immigration policy impacted day-to-day operations.

Evidence presented showed Wisconsin judges were confused about their roles when Trump’s demands to deport more migrants translated into ICE arrests in the public areas of government buildings. This worried judges and court staff, who saw key witnesses or parties apprehended before their matters finished—sometimes arrested in court elevators or the galleries inside active courtrooms.

In emails, Dugan openly worried about how defendants’ appearances at her proceedings had dropped due to these arrests. So too had the attendance of witnesses and even plaintiffs.

In April, when the obstruction occurred, the roughly 50 judges in the sprawling Milwaukee County Courthouse were working on a draft policy: ICE officers should check-in with the chief judge prior to making arrests.

Agents testified they were leaning on those public court areas because arrests there are safer. The check-in and metal detectors at the court door made it likely migrants wouldn’t be armed when plainclothes officers apprehended them.

Hot Mic Evidence

The prosecution focused on the abundant video and audio evidence that took jurors inside Dugan’s courtroom and caught her suggesting a plan that would help the defendant Eduardo Flores-Ruiz evade the federal officers.

On April 18 the judge confronted officers outside of her courtroom, telling them to go to the chief judge’s office. Then she got back on the bench, and quickly dispatched Flores-Ruiz’s case telling his lawyer to seek another date.

A new audio system installed in her courtroom included eight separate microphones. Prosecutors were able to isolate a conversation Dugan had with a court staff member in which she suggested the migrant go down “the stairs” which led to a lower court floor away from the agents.

When the staffer commented that someone could get in trouble, Dugan replied, “I’ll do it. I’ll get the heat,” before taking Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out a side hall near the stairs. Flores-Ruiz’s inexperienced attorney—who prosecutors said had been on the job for roughly a month—instead walked her client back out into the public hallway where the immigration officers tailed him. They later arrested him after a foot chase outside the court building.

National Spotlight

The case drew national attention from the morning Dugan was arrested, with both critics and proponents calling out the importance of the unprecedented case.

Attorney General Pam Bondi and Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Kash Patel both touted the case as a warning for state officials interfering with immigration policy. Daniel Suhr, president of the conservative Center for American Rights, an amicus that supports the prosecution, said the ruling was a vindication for the rule of law.

“Judges are not above the law. Their core function is to respect the rule of law, not to undermine it,” said Suhr.

The case is United States v. Dugan, E.D. Wis., No. 2:25-cr-00089, verdict returned 12/18/25.