Judge Dugan Appeal Denied

# Judge Dugan Appeal Denied A federal judge in Milwaukee has refused to throw out former Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan’s felony conviction, leaving intact one of the most closely watched courthouse-immigration cases in the country. On April 6, 2026, United States District Judge Lynn Adelman denied Dugan’s request for a judgment of acquittal or a new trial after a jury found her guilty in December 2025 of felony obstruction. (jsonline.com) (wisn.com) The ruling keeps in place the jury’s split verdict from December 18, 2025. That jury convicted Dugan on the felony obstruction count but acquitted her on a separate misdemeanor charge alleging she concealed an individual to prevent arrest or discovery. (wpr.org) (abcnews.com) The case grew out of an April 18, 2025 incident at the Milwaukee County courthouse. Federal agents were there to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican national who was appearing in Dugan’s courtroom on a state battery case, and prosecutors said Dugan directed him through a side door to avoid the agents waiting in the public hallway. (fox6now.com) (jsonline.com) Federal prosecutors charged Dugan on April 25, 2025, and the indictment quickly turned the case into a national argument over how far a state judge can go when federal immigration officers show up at a local courthouse. Dugan pleaded not guilty and argued that her conduct fell within her authority as a judge managing her courtroom. (jsonline.com) (abcnews.com) That judicial-authority argument did not persuade the trial court. Before trial, Adelman rejected Dugan’s effort to dismiss the case on immunity grounds, and in his new 39-page April 6 order he again rejected the idea that her status as a judge shielded her from prosecution. (abcnews.com) (wisconsinexaminer.com) The post-trial fight centered on whether the evidence was strong enough to support the jury’s decision and whether the jury instructions were flawed. Adelman said the court could not reweigh witness credibility after trial and concluded that Dugan had not shown legal error serious enough to justify wiping out the conviction or ordering a retrial. (wisn.com) (courthousenews.com) The ruling does not end the case. Dugan’s lawyers said after the April 6 decision that they plan to take the fight to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which would review whether the trial court handled the law correctly. (wisconsinexaminer.com) (jsonline.com) The case has drawn unusual attention because it sits at the intersection of three sensitive institutions at once: local courts, federal immigration enforcement, and public trust in judges. A conviction against a sitting or former state judge for interfering with an immigration arrest is rare enough that legal coverage has repeatedly described the matter as highly unusual and closely watched. (news.bloomberglaw.com) (courthousenews.com) It has also revived a practical dispute that predates Dugan’s prosecution: whether immigration arrests at courthouses discourage witnesses, victims, and defendants from appearing in court. Reporting during and after the trial showed that Milwaukee court officials had been working on courthouse guidance related to Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity, even though testimony indicated federal agents were not required to obtain permission from the chief judge before making arrests in public hallways. (fox6now.com) (wpr.org) Online reaction has been intense and sharply polarized. Some commentators have framed the denial as proof that judges must face criminal consequences if they interfere with immigration enforcement, while others have treated the prosecution as a warning shot against judicial independence in politically charged cases; that conclusion reflects the tenor of public commentary and coverage rather than a formal finding by the court. (x.com 1) (x.com 2) (courthousenews.com) For now, the concrete legal fact is simple: Dugan’s conviction still stands as of April 8, 2026. The next major checkpoint will be sentencing or review by the Seventh Circuit, and whichever comes first could shape how future courts, prosecutors, and judges handle confrontations between courtroom authority and federal immigration officers. (jsonline.com) (wisconsinexaminer.com)