The federal trial of Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan began on Monday following jury selection. Judge Dugan faces charges related to allegedly obstructing immigration authorities at the county courthouse in April last year.
Charges and Legal Proceedings
A grand jury indicted Judge Dugan on one felony count of obstructing a proceeding and one misdemeanor count of concealing an individual to prevent an arrest. She has entered a plea of not guilty to both charges. If convicted, Judge Dugan could face a maximum of six years in prison.
Prosecution's Allegations
According to the criminal complaint, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents sought to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican national, for being unlawfully present in the U.S. They anticipated his appearance before Judge Dugan on April 18 for misdemeanor domestic assault charges.
Prosecutors allege that when ICE agents arrived, Judge Dugan informed them they required a judicial warrant, directing them to leave the hallway and proceed to the chief judge's office. During this time, she allegedly addressed Flores-Ruiz's case off the record and instructed him and his counsel to exit the courtroom via a non-public jury door. She also reportedly advised Flores-Ruiz's counsel that his subsequent court appearance could be conducted via Zoom.
Ultimately, Flores-Ruiz and his attorney were observed by ICE agents in a public hallway. Agents pursued and arrested Flores-Ruiz outside the courthouse. He has since been deported.
Defense Arguments
Judge Dugan's defense team has stated that she asserts her innocence and expects vindication in court. Court documents submitted by her attorneys argue that court policy regarding immigration enforcement at the courthouse was in a state of change at the time of the incident. They contend that Judge Dugan was adhering to draft protocols issued by the chief judge, which mandated referring ICE agents to a supervisor.
Legal experts not involved in the case have commented on the relevance of intent. Tony Cotton, a Wisconsin criminal defense attorney, suggested that if Judge Dugan's actions were intended to explain protocol or minimize confrontation rather than obstruct, it would bear on her intent. Laurie Levenson, a law professor and former federal prosecutor, emphasized that the case revolves around Judge Dugan's intent—whether she sought to conceal an individual or impede a proceeding, or was operating under her perceived professional duties.
Context of Immigration Enforcement
Levenson noted a shift in the operational environment for federal authorities at courthouses. Prior to the first term of the Trump administration, courthouses were largely considered off-limits for federal immigration arrests to avoid disrupting judicial proceedings. This approach has since changed amid increased immigration enforcement by the Trump administration.
Officials within the Trump administration, including President Trump, have publicly supported the prosecution. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) referred to Judge Dugan as an "activist judge" on social media.
Judge Dugan's legal representation includes prominent attorneys, such as former Republican Solicitor General Paul Clement, suggesting preparation for potential appeals.