Former Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan will not serve prison time after being convicted of obstructing federal immigration agents during their attempt to arrest an illegal immigrant at a Milwaukee courthouse in 2025. Instead, Dugan was sentenced to pay a $5,000 fine, despite federal prosecutors requesting a prison term of between 15 and 21 months. U.S. […]

Former Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan will not serve prison time after being convicted of obstructing federal immigration agents during their attempt to arrest an illegal immigrant at a Milwaukee courthouse in 2025.

Instead, Dugan was sentenced to pay a $5,000 fine, despite federal prosecutors requesting a prison term of between 15 and 21 months.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman acknowledged the seriousness of the offense but concluded that incarceration was not the appropriate punishment.

“I think this is a situation where an otherwise good person, upset by immigration policies in this country, made a bad decision in the moment,” Adelman said, according to Fox News.

Dugan, 66, was convicted last year on a felony obstruction charge that carried a maximum possible sentence of five years in prison.

The conviction stemmed from events on April 18, 2025, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrived at the courthouse to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz. Prosecutors argued that Dugan intentionally interfered with the operation by helping delay the arrest. Although the effort temporarily prevented agents from taking Flores-Ruiz into custody inside the courthouse, federal officers later apprehended him outside the building.

Federal prosecutors argued throughout the case that Dugan’s actions were deliberate and warranted a meaningful prison sentence.

Advertisement

According to WTMJ-AM, prosecutors rejected the idea that the incident represented “a momentary lapse in judgment followed by reflection or remorse.” Instead, they argued that Dugan had consistently minimized her conduct and refused to acknowledge wrongdoing.

In their sentencing memorandum, prosecutors wrote that Dugan’s “continued minimization of her conduct and persistent refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing when evaluating the need to promote respect for the law… heightens the need for the Court’s sentence to promote respect for the law and restore confidence that the justice system holds itself accountable.”

The filing also emphasized the unique responsibilities carried by members of the judiciary.

“Judges are entrusted with tremendous discretion, but there is a line they cannot cross,” prosecutors wrote. “The defendant crossed that line. That, combined with her lack of remorse or sense of accountability, merits a sentence that reflects the serious nature of her conduct and its broader impact on the justice system.”

Executive Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Frohling argued that Dugan fully understood the legal consequences of her actions but chose to interfere with federal law enforcement anyway.

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Frohling wrote that Dugan’s “privileged upbringing” meant she knew she should not break the law.

He further argued that Dugan “placed the interests of a criminal defendant above the rights of his victims, used her colleague to unwittingly facilitate the crime, and placed law enforcement agents and members of the public in danger by undermining an arrest plan, resulting in a foot chase through moving traffic outside of the courthouse.”

Advertisement

During Wednesday’s sentencing hearing, Dugan defended her conduct, saying her actions were motivated by concerns she believed existed within the courthouse community rather than by personal interests.

“My acts that day were consistent with community concerns at the courthouse,” Dugan said. “My judicial acts were not done with any malicious intent or to advance any personal interests.”

She also described the professional consequences she has faced since her arrest.

“Since the government’s arrest of me, I was forced to retire… In January, I resigned from my office so the constituents would have a judge in my branch to begin the year,” she said.

Dugan rejected both the criticism and praise that have followed the case, saying neither accurately reflects her career.

“I have been cast as a scofflaw and as a hero. I am neither. I am a public servant who was just trying to do my job. Your honor, I will not let those minutes on April 18, 2025, define my life’s work.”

The sentence concludes one of the highest-profile cases involving a state judge and federal immigration enforcement in recent years. While prosecutors argued that prison was necessary to reinforce respect for the rule of law and public confidence in the justice system, the court ultimately determined that a financial penalty was sufficient punishment.