Federal Ruling Puts Wisconsin Judge in Serious Legal Jeopardy
A high-profile case in Wisconsin has shaken the legal community after a federal judge ruled that a Milwaukee County circuit judge cannot use judicial immunity to shield herself from prosecution. The decision clears the way for criminal proceedings against Judge Hannah Dugan, who stands accused of interfering with federal immigration enforcement inside her own courthouse.
Immunity Argument Rejected
In a ruling issued this week, U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman determined that Dugan is not entitled to judicial immunity. The principle, which generally protects judges from lawsuits or criminal liability for actions performed in their official capacity, has limits—and Adelman concluded that Dugan’s alleged conduct goes beyond them.
Quoting the Supreme Court, Adelman noted, “The official seeking absolute immunity bears the burden of showing that such immunity is justified for the function in question.” He went on to say he could not rule as a matter of law that Dugan’s alleged actions fell within the narrow protections of immunity.
This decision is a major setback for Dugan’s defense team, which had argued she was acting in her judicial role when the incident occurred.
How the Case Began
The controversy stems from an incident on April 18 at the Milwaukee County Courthouse. Prosecutors allege that Judge Dugan learned Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents were waiting inside the courthouse to detain a defendant appearing before her. The man, identified as Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, was facing three misdemeanor battery charges.
Surveillance footage and witness accounts suggest Dugan confronted the plainclothes agents in a hallway. She reportedly told them they required a judicial warrant to proceed and directed them toward the chief judge’s office. Instead of conducting the scheduled hearing, she allegedly resolved the matter off the record and then permitted Flores-Ruiz and his attorney to leave through a rear exit to avoid detection.
Despite those efforts, ICE agents eventually arrested Flores-Ruiz later the same day. He remains in federal custody pending immigration proceedings.
Defense Pushes Back
Following her indictment in April, Dugan’s attorneys moved to dismiss the charges, invoking both judicial immunity and constitutional principles. They argued the federal government lacks the authority to prosecute a state judge for actions taken in her courtroom. They also claimed the charges violated the Tenth Amendment and separation of powers.
Her legal team emphasized that judicial immunity traditionally applies to all judicial acts, except those involving outright criminal behavior such as bribery or deliberate violations of constitutional rights. In their view, Dugan’s decisions—even if controversial—were part of her judicial function.
Court Finds Limits to Immunity
Adelman disagreed. He concluded that the allegations—interfering with a federal arrest, misleading federal agents, and facilitating an escape from custody—went beyond the scope of ordinary judicial activity. “There is no basis for granting immunity simply because some of the allegations in the indictment describe conduct that could be considered ‘part of a judge’s job,’” Adelman wrote.
The ruling does not address Dugan’s guilt or innocence but ensures the case will move forward. A hearing is set for September 3, with both sides expressing interest in beginning trial proceedings before year’s end.
An Unusual and Significant Case
The prosecution of a sitting judge for allegedly obstructing federal immigration enforcement has drawn nationwide attention. While clashes between federal and local authorities over immigration are not uncommon, it is rare for a judge to face criminal charges over such actions.
Legal analysts suggest the case could have lasting implications for the doctrine of judicial immunity. Traditionally seen as a cornerstone of judicial independence, immunity ensures that judges can perform their duties without fear of personal liability. However, if the allegations against Dugan are proven, the case may establish new boundaries for what conduct falls outside that shield.
What Comes Next
If convicted, Dugan could face penalties including fines or imprisonment, though the specific sentencing guidelines remain unclear until trial. The U.S. Attorney’s Office has declined to speculate further, and the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s office has not commented on whether Flores-Ruiz’s local criminal charges remain active.
For now, the case raises broader questions about the role of judges, the limits of their authority, and how far the law can stretch to ensure accountability—even for those sworn to uphold it. With trial preparations underway, Judge Hannah Dugan finds herself in an unprecedented position: not presiding over the law, but standing trial under it.
