In a case that’s quickly drawing national attention and intensifying the debate over immigration enforcement, a federal grand jury indicted Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan on May 13. The indictment accuses the 66-year-old judge of obstructing federal agents and concealing an undocumented immigrant in an alleged attempt to prevent his arrest by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at the Milwaukee County Courthouse.
Dugan is facing two felony counts: obstruction of a federal officer and concealment to prevent arrest, each carrying a potential penalty of up to three years in prison and $175,000 in fines. While legal experts note that non-violent charges such as these often result in significantly reduced sentencing, the political and legal ramifications of the case are likely to be extensive.
Judge Dugan, who has served on the Milwaukee County bench since 2016, is expected to formally enter a plea during a federal hearing on May 15. In a statement through her legal team, Dugan maintains her innocence: “As she said after her unnecessary arrest, Judge Dugan asserts her innocence and looks forward to being vindicated in court.”
The indictment stems from events that unfolded on April 18, when ICE agents arrived at the Milwaukee County Courthouse with plans to detain 30-year-old undocumented immigrant Eduardo Flores-Ruiz. Flores-Ruiz had a hearing scheduled in Judge Dugan’s courtroom.
According to federal documents, a six-member federal arrest team, fully briefed and stationed in the hallway outside Dugan’s courtroom, was there to apprehend Flores-Ruiz. Dugan allegedly learned about the agents’ presence from her court clerk, Alan Freed Jr., who had been tipped off by Flores-Ruiz’s attorney at the time, Mercedes de la Rosa. She reportedly identified and photographed the agents, sharing their positions and appearance with courtroom staff.
The indictment alleges that Judge Dugan took several deliberate steps to thwart the arrest. She is accused of confronting the agents and falsely informing them they needed a judicial warrant, not the administrative warrant they were carrying, in order to make the arrest inside the courthouse. She then allegedly directed them to leave the hallway and go to the office of Chief Judge Carl Ashley, where she knew they would be occupied.
While most of the ICE agents were away from the courtroom, the indictment says Dugan rapidly concluded Flores-Ruiz’s case “off the record” and directed him and his lawyer to exit through a non-public jury door, providing access to an adjacent hallway and the public elevator area.
However, a federal agent who remained behind reportedly followed Flores-Ruiz and his attorney into an elevator, leading to the man’s arrest outside the courthouse.
The indictment, issued by a 20-member grand jury, was returned in a brief hearing overseen by U.S. Magistrate Nancy Joseph. The case is now assigned to U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, and prosecution is being led personally by Acting U.S. Attorney Richard Frohling, an unusual step highlighting the sensitivity and visibility of the case.
Several witnesses testified before the grand jury prior to the indictment, including Freed, de la Rosa (who has since withdrawn from Flores-Ruiz’s case), and Judge Kristela Cervera, whose courtroom is adjacent to Dugan’s. Cervera is alleged to have escorted ICE agents to Judge Ashley’s office during the incident, inadvertently playing a role in the delay of the arrest.
Flores-Ruiz is currently in federal custody at the Ozaukee County Jail and is expected to be appointed a new public defender before his next court hearing scheduled for May 14.
Dugan’s arrest at the courthouse just a week after the incident sparked immediate controversy. Handcuffed in full view of courthouse personnel, she was taken into federal custody, a move that Milwaukee County Chief Judge Carl Ashley criticized as both startling and concerning. “We are all concerned about the optics and implications of a sitting judge being arrested at her workplace,” Ashley said.
Legal observers and immigrant rights advocates have raised alarms over what they see as aggressive federal overreach. Protesters and local officials argue that arresting individuals in or near courtrooms undermines judicial independence and discourages immigrants from participating in the legal system, whether as defendants, victims, or witnesses.
Federal officials, however, defend the courthouse arrests as tactically necessary. ICE spokespeople have reiterated that public courthouses are often the only predictable location where individuals can be safely apprehended, having already passed through security and being unarmed.
A May 6 CNN investigation revealed that ICE has carried out similar courthouse arrests in at least six other states, including North Carolina, Massachusetts, and Illinois.
This case is being closely watched as a flashpoint in the larger conflict between local judicial discretion and federal immigration enforcement. Judge Dugan’s defense is expected to center around whether her actions were a willful obstruction of justice or a legitimate attempt to preserve courtroom order and due process.
The case may also influence broader legal and political discussions about the limits of federal authority inside state-run court systems, and whether local officials—especially judges—have a legal duty to comply with ICE operations conducted under administrative warrants.
At its heart, the case against Judge Hannah Dugan raises pressing constitutional questions: How far can federal immigration enforcement go inside state courts? Do judges have the discretion to delay or alter proceedings in the face of immigration arrests? And what are the broader consequences for judicial independence when judges are themselves prosecuted?
Judge Dugan is set to appear in court on May 15, where she will enter a plea, and the formal legal proceedings will begin. Meanwhile, immigration advocates, judicial watchdogs, and civil liberties organizations will be monitoring developments closely.
With both political and legal tensions at play, the outcome of this case could set a significant precedent, not only for how immigration arrests are conducted in the future but for how judges respond when courtroom integrity and federal enforcement collide.
