ICE Obstruction Case Against Wisconsin Judge Heads to Trial

Monday will bring a first for the American legal system: a judge on trial for helping an undocumented immigrant evade federal authorities.

Hannah Dugan, a Wisconsin state trial judge, will face a jury after the FBI arrested her in April for ushering a migrant criminal defendant from her courtroom down a private hallway away from awaiting immigration officers. Jurors must weigh whether that snap decision to assist a migrant in her courtroom—in the midst of President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown—means she is guilty of obstructing a federal agency and concealing a defendant.

While proponents of convicting Dugan say the trial is critical to preserving federal primacy over immigration law, critics of the president say jurors should vindicate Dugan’s actions, her powers to control her courtroom, and thwart unlawful actions by the Trump administration.

“This is an inflection point, and one of the critically important cases in the course of the rule of law as its unfolding in 2025,” said Norm Eisen, founder of Democracy Defenders Fund and one of the lawyers representing a group of former state and federal judges urging dismissal.

Arguments that Dugan holds criminal immunity for her in-court actions were rejected by liberal US District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Judge Lynn Adelman, who will preside over the trial.

“Judges, just as much as presidents or members of Congress are obligated to follow the law—including laws that they don’t like or laws that they think are unjust,” said Daniel Suhr, president of the conservative Center for American Rights, an amicus that supports the prosecution.

Video, Audio Evidence

Eve-of-trial fights between the lawyers have focused on how much evidence jurors can be shown capturing Eduardo Flores-Ruiz’s failed escape attempt from Milwaukee County’s massive courthouse, and Dugan’s exact role.

Audio from inside court, prosecutors say, shows Dugan treated Flores-Ruiz’s case differently, and jurors will hear a witness say she confronted federal officials.

Flores-Ruiz was set to appear before Dugan on April 18 related to domestic abuse charges; through his charges and arrest records, the Department of Homeland Security identified Flores-Ruiz as having been previously deported back to Mexico.

Officers planned to do so again after arresting him in the public court building, a tactic US Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have used extensively to focus deportation on those charged with crimes.

Dugan knew why ICE was there. Video shows her talking with the agents outside of her court before she goes back inside to handle her criminal docket, and minutes later Flores-Ruiz and his attorney exiting Dugan’s court through a side door into a hallway leading away from the officers. The prosecution alleges witnesses in Dugan’s courtroom saw the judge quickly end the proceeding and usher him and his attorney through that side exit.

Flores-Ruiz got outside of the courthouse and tried to run. Federal officers caught him after a short chase, and Dugan was arrested a week later.

Purple State Jury

Observers say the case isn’t a slam dunk for either side.

Though the swing state’s largest city hasn’t been a key target of Trump immigration enforcement like Chicago, 90 miles south, Milwaukee is deep-blue and has a roughly 20% Hispanic population.

But the jury pool isn’t just the city—prosecutors get to sell their case to a panel including residents from rural and suburban counties that shifted right in 2024 when Trump carried the state.

That puts Trump’s policies on trial as much as Dugan’s response to them, as juries nationwide are questioning the legality of federal law enforcement targeting judges, union leaders, protesters, and members of Congress over conduct opposing Trump’s policies, Eisen said.

He thinks that will cause another black eye for Trump’s aggressive enforcement strategy, which has been rebuffed in roughly 200 federal cases.

“The jury is going to give this case the back of its hand as part of a larger pattern of these meritless cases,” Eisen said.

Suhr said the video evidence is so strong it transcends politics, and he points to the majority-liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court proactively suspending Dugan once she was charged.

“You can’t go beyond your authority to use your power as a judge to fix what you don’t like,” he said. “Judges are not given a roving warrant to do justice as they see fit.”

Dugan is represented by Strang Bradley LLC, Gimbel Reilly Guerin & Brown LLP, and Steven Biskupic of Thiensville, Wis.

Attorneys for Dugan didn’t respond to requests for comment. The prosecution declined to comment.

The case is U.S. v. Dugan, E.D. Wis., No. 2:25-cr-00089, trial scheduled 12/15/25.