Milwaukee Judge Resigns Following Federal Obstruction Conviction
Milwaukee Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan has resigned from her position following her conviction last month for obstructing federal immigration agents. In her resignation letter to Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers, Dugan expressed that while she plans to continue fighting the case, she believes Wisconsin citizens deserve to begin the new year with an active judge in her courtroom rather than having the position entangled in partisan legislative disputes. Her resignation took effect immediately, ending her tenure on the bench where she had been suspended since April while still collecting her approximately $175,000 annual salary.
The conviction stems from an April 2023 incident where Dugan was found guilty of helping Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an undocumented immigrant, evade Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. According to prosecutors, when Dugan learned that plainclothes ICE agents were in the courthouse to arrest Flores-Ruiz, she directed him and his attorney to exit her courtroom through a back door. A 12-person jury convicted her of felony obstruction on December 18, though she was acquitted on a lesser misdemeanor charge. The felony conviction carries a potential sentence of up to five years in federal prison, with no sentencing date yet established by U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman.
In her resignation letter, Dugan framed the case against her as an unprecedented threat to judicial independence, writing, “I am the subject of unprecedented federal legal proceedings, which are far from concluded but which present immense and complex challenges that threaten the independence of our judiciary.” Her defense team has indicated they will seek a new trial, suggesting that the mixed verdict demonstrates “the opportunity we have to clear Judge Dugan’s name and show she did nothing wrong in this matter.” They also noted that the defense has required considerable resources and mentioned the importance of public support for her defense fund as they prepare for the next phase of legal proceedings.
The case had been building toward a political confrontation before Dugan’s resignation. Wisconsin Republican legislative leaders, including Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and Assembly Majority Leader Tyler August, had threatened to initiate impeachment proceedings if she didn’t step down immediately following her conviction. They argued that the state Constitution prohibits anyone convicted of a felony from holding “an office of trust, profit or honor” unless pardoned. In their public statement, the Republican leaders emphasized, “Wisconsinites deserve to know their judiciary is impartial and that justice is blind. Judge Hannah Dugan is neither, and her privilege of serving the people of Wisconsin has come to an end.”
The conviction of a sitting judge for obstructing federal immigration enforcement represents a rare intersection of judicial authority, immigration policy, and the boundaries of individual conscience in official roles. Dugan’s case highlights tensions between different levels of government regarding immigration enforcement responsibilities, particularly in courthouse settings. Immigration advocates have long raised concerns about ICE operations in courthouses, arguing they can deter immigrants from participating in the justice system, while federal authorities maintain they have the right to enforce immigration laws in such settings, especially when targeting individuals with outstanding warrants.
As Dugan steps down from the bench, her case remains a flashpoint in ongoing debates about judicial ethics, immigration enforcement practices, and the separation of powers between state and federal authorities. Her decision to resign rather than face impeachment proceedings has likely averted an additional layer of political conflict, but the underlying legal battle continues as her defense team prepares to challenge the conviction. Meanwhile, Milwaukee County’s Branch 31 will need a new judge, with Governor Evers now responsible for appointing a replacement to fill the vacancy until the next election. The outcome of Dugan’s federal case, including any potential sentencing and appeals, will continue to be closely watched by legal observers and may influence how judges navigate similar situations in the future.
