A federal judge has delivered a decisive blow to a disgraced Wisconsin jurist who tried to put herself above the law—upholding her felony conviction for helping an illegal immigrant evade federal authorities.
In a sharply worded ruling, U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman rejected the appeal of former Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan, who was convicted in December 2025 on obstruction charges. The case, now headed toward sentencing, has become a flashpoint in the ongoing battle between federal immigration enforcement and local officials who refuse to cooperate.
At the center of the scandal is Dugan’s conduct during an April 2025 court hearing. According to federal prosecutors, Dugan knowingly helped an illegal immigrant—identified as Eduardo Flores-Ruiz—avoid Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents waiting just outside her courtroom.
Rather than allow federal authorities to do their job, Dugan allegedly confronted ICE agents, demanded they leave, and then escorted Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out through a restricted jury exit—an unusual move that prosecutors say was clearly designed to help him slip away.
The attempt failed. Federal agents apprehended Flores-Ruiz outside the courthouse anyway.
Still, the damage had been done.
In his 39-page order, Judge Adelman dismissed Dugan’s legal arguments, including her claim that she was protected by judicial immunity. He also rejected her contention that the jury had been improperly instructed, writing that her defense failed to demonstrate any meaningful prejudice in the trial.
The ruling leaves Dugan facing sentencing in June—and potentially serious prison time.
Her legal team insists the fight isn’t over, signaling plans to appeal to the 7th Circuit. They continue to argue that Dugan acted within her authority as a judge, despite a jury of her peers finding otherwise.
For many observers, however, the case is about something much bigger than one rogue judge.
It underscores a growing tension across the country: local officials and judges who actively obstruct federal immigration enforcement, often under the banner of so-called “sanctuary” policies. Under President Donald Trump, the Department of Justice has taken a far more aggressive stance against such actions—making clear that interference will not be tolerated.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche put it bluntly after the original conviction: “Nobody is above the law. This Department will enforce federal immigration law and hold criminals to account—even those who wear robes.”
The facts of the case paint a troubling picture. According to the DOJ, Dugan not only disrupted a lawful federal operation but also chose to delay proceedings for a domestic violence case—despite victims being present in court—so she could assist Flores-Ruiz’s escape.
Critics argue that this kind of behavior erodes public trust in the justice system and puts ideology ahead of the rule of law.
Unsurprisingly, the case has sparked strong reactions, particularly among conservatives who see it as a long-overdue example of accountability. For them, the message is simple: whether you’re a politician, a bureaucrat, or a judge, the law applies equally.
As Dugan awaits sentencing, her fall from the bench serves as a stark warning. In an era of heightened debate over immigration enforcement, crossing the line from dissent to obstruction can carry serious consequences.
And this time, the system pushed back.
