Wisconsin Judge Found Guilty of Obstruction in Immigration Case

A jury has convicted a Wisconsin judge of obstruction after she was found guilty of aiding an unauthorized immigrant in evading federal authorities. On Thursday, the jury found Hannah Dugan, a judge on the Milwaukee County Circuit Court, guilty of obstruction, a felony, while acquitting her of a misdemeanor charge related to concealing an individual to prevent arrest. The conviction marks a significant moment in the ongoing immigration policy debates in the United States, coinciding with the administration of former President Donald Trump.

The charges stemmed from an incident on April 18, 2023, when U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrived at the courthouse to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, who had reportedly reentered the country illegally. Dugan learned of the agents’ presence and allegedly attempted to obstruct their efforts by falsely claiming their administrative warrant was insufficient for an arrest, directing them to the chief judge’s office instead.

Following six hours of deliberation, the jury’s verdict leaves Dugan facing a potential sentence of up to five years in prison. The exact timing of her sentencing remains unclear. Dugan’s lead attorney, Steve Biskupic, expressed disappointment with the split verdict and questioned how the jury could arrive at different conclusions regarding the charges.

Political Implications and Reactions

The case has heightened tensions surrounding Trump’s immigration policies, with officials from his administration labeling Dugan an “activist judge.” In contrast, critics argue that this prosecution serves as a warning to judges who challenge federal immigration enforcement. U.S. Attorney Brad Schimel, who oversaw the prosecution, urged the public to respect the jury’s decision and emphasized that the case was not politically motivated. He stated, “This case is serious for all involved, but it is ultimately about a single day, a single bad day, in a public courthouse.”

The proceedings highlighted the growing divide between the White House and the judiciary. Dugan did not testify during the trial, and her defense team argued that she was adhering to courthouse protocols that required reporting immigration agents to supervisors. Testimony from a colleague, Judge Kristela Cervera, emphasized the inappropriateness of a judge assisting individuals in evading arrest.

Details of the Incident

According to court filings, ICE agents had come to apprehend Flores-Ruiz, who was scheduled for a state hearing. When the agents arrived, Dugan allegedly took steps to create an opportunity for Flores-Ruiz to escape. After the agents were misdirected, Dugan reportedly moved Flores-Ruiz’s case to the top of her docket, allowing him to leave the courthouse through a private exit.

Despite the defense’s arguments that Dugan was following procedures, prosecutors presented audio recordings where she suggested she would “take the heat” for her actions. The case has drawn significant public attention, with supporters rallying outside the federal courthouse, denouncing the prosecution as politically motivated.

Following the legal proceedings, U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche commended the verdict, asserting that “no one is above the law,” reaffirming the principle that judicial figures are not exempt from accountability.

As the case unfolds, it remains to be seen how the conviction will affect the broader landscape of immigration enforcement and judicial independence in the United States.