Is the federal government overreaching by criminally charging a state judge over courtroom decisions? On April 18, 2025, Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan allegedly obstructed ICE agents, sparking a high-profile trial that began with jury selection this week, as Courthouse News Service reports.
This contentious case, centering on Dugan’s actions to shield an unauthorized migrant from ICE during a courtroom incident, could set a precedent for judicial authority as her trial kicks off Monday and may extend until Christmas.
Earlier this year Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, 31, a Mexican citizen who entered the U.S. without authorization twice since 2013, appeared in Dugan’s courtroom in Milwaukee for a pretrial hearing on battery and domestic abuse charges. ICE agents arrived with an administrative warrant to detain him.
Dugan, 66, reportedly left the courtroom upon the agents’ arrival, instructing them to consult Chief Judge Carl Ashley. The government claims she then held an unrecorded discussion with Flores-Ruiz and his counsel to postpone the hearing.
Authorities allege Dugan guided Flores-Ruiz and his attorney through a back exit into a private corridor that day. Surveillance footage shows them leaving via a “jury door” into a public hallway, with federal agents in plainclothes trailing and arresting Flores-Ruiz outside the courthouse.
Just one week after the April 18 incident, Dugan was arrested by FBI agents and suspended with pay by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. By May 13, a grand jury indicted her, and on May 15, she pleaded not guilty.
Dugan has steadfastly claimed innocence, filing a daring motion to dismiss before her plea, arguing for judicial immunity due to acting in her official role. She framed her conduct as merely managing movement within her courtroom, but the motion delayed proceedings.
In August, U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, a Bill Clinton appointee, rejected the dismissal, ruling that while Dugan operated within her scope, broad immunity doesn’t apply. He noted, however, that she can’t be liable for good-faith judicial acts, though her actions may not qualify.
Jury selection commenced this week under Adelman’s oversight, with voir dire expected to extend into Dec. 12. Prospective jurors answered questionnaires on immigration views and case opinions to ensure impartiality, though specific political probes were denied.
The trial, starting on Monday, could stretch until Christmas given extensive evidence. Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Frohling plans to summon at least 25 witnesses over four days, including ICE agents and courtroom observers from the April incident.
The prosecution must prove Dugan’s intent to “corruptly obstruct” ICE and “harbor” Flores-Ruiz beyond reasonable doubt. While Frohling sought to bar evidence of Dugan’s “good motives,” Adelman permitted testimony on her mental state and motivations that day.
Chief Judge Carl Ashley, expected to testify, may support Dugan’s defense that she followed his directives on handling ICE encounters. Both sides intend to use April 18 courtroom audio for context, though admissibility remains undecided pending Dugan’s suppression motion.
The defense labels this prosecution an assault on judicial independence, igniting a partisan firestorm over the judiciary’s role amid tensions with President Donald Trump. “The decision to charge this as a crime is really unusual,” said UW-Madison Professor Howard Schweber. “Certainly, this is an attempt to intimidate judges.”
Yet, isn’t it curious that a judge’s actions, potentially undermining federal immigration enforcement, are framed as mere procedural discretion? Supporters of strong border policies might argue that this case tests whether judicial overreach can evade accountability under the guise of immunity.
If convicted, Dugan faces up to six years in prison and hefty fines, while Flores-Ruiz was deported on Nov. 13, per the Department of Homeland Security. As this trial unfolds, it challenges the balance between judicial authority and federal law enforcement -- a debate far from settled.
