A liberal Milwaukee judge just lost her bid to hide behind “judicial immunity” after a federal court refused to toss her conviction for helping an illegal immigrant dodge arrest.
Story Snapshot
- Former Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan was convicted of obstructing a federal immigration arrest after helping an illegal immigrant leave through a private courthouse exit.
- Dugan claimed “judicial immunity” and state sovereignty should block any prosecution, but the federal court rejected those arguments and upheld the jury’s guilty verdict.
- The case shows that even judges can be held accountable when they obstruct federal immigration law instead of protecting victims and enforcing the law.
- Trump-era courthouse enforcement policies and the current administration’s Justice Department are sending a message: there is no special shield for officials who help criminal aliens evade arrest.
Judge Tried to Shield an Illegal Immigrant from Arrest
Federal court records show that Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan was indicted in 2025 on two federal charges: obstruction of a federal administrative proceeding and concealment of a person from arrest.[3] Prosecutors said that while she was on the bench, Dugan learned that immigration officers were in the courthouse to arrest a noncitizen defendant with a past removal and new domestic battery charges.[3] Instead of simply running her courtroom, she allegedly worked to keep federal officers from taking that man into custody.
According to the indictment, Dugan challenged the federal agents’ authority, sent them to talk to the chief judge, then took her hearing off the record.[3] While agents were away, she allowed the defendant to leave through a secure, nonpublic exit used for jurors.[3] Immigration officers and other federal partners later arrested him only after spotting him and chasing him outside the courthouse.[2] For many readers, this is the core problem: a judge used the power of her office not to protect the public, but to give a break to an illegal immigrant accused of hurting someone at home.
Jury Convicts on Obstruction, Court Rejects Immunity Claims
A federal jury heard the evidence in December 2025 and found Dugan guilty of obstructing or impeding a proceeding before a federal department or agency, while acquitting her on a separate concealment count.[3] That felony obstruction conviction carries a maximum sentence of up to five years in prison.[2] The verdict forced Dugan off the bench, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court had already suspended her after the charges, calling it in the public interest to remove her from judicial duties.[4] In plain terms, her peers concluded she could not remain in a position of public trust.
Instead of accepting the jury’s decision, Dugan’s legal team filed motions asking the trial judge to throw out the verdict or grant a new trial.[3] They argued that everything she did was an “official judicial act” and therefore absolutely protected by judicial immunity, and that federal prosecution violated state sovereignty and the Tenth Amendment. The federal district judge flatly rejected that theory. The court explained that no federal case had ever treated judicial immunity as a shield from criminal prosecution itself, as opposed to a defense against civil lawsuits.[2] The judge found plenty of evidence that Dugan’s conduct crossed the line into criminal obstruction and let the conviction stand.[3]
Why Her Immunity Argument Failed — and Why It Matters
Dugan’s defense leaned heavily on recent Supreme Court language about presidential immunity in Trump v. United States, claiming that immunity should bar her prosecution “at the outset.” A group of former judges even filed a friend-of-the-court brief, warning that the case could threaten judicial independence and arguing that official acts should be completely off-limits to federal criminal charges. But the district court disagreed, noting that criminal laws at issue apply to “whoever” obstructs or conceals, with no carve-out for judges who step outside their proper role.
𝐉𝐔𝐃𝐆𝐄 𝐃𝐔𝐆𝐀𝐍'𝐒 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐕𝐈𝐂𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐔𝐏𝐇𝐄𝐋𝐃 — 𝐒𝐇𝐄 𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐄 𝐑𝐎𝐁𝐄𝐒 𝐓𝐎 𝐇𝐄𝐋𝐏 𝐀𝐍 𝐈𝐋𝐋𝐄𝐆𝐀𝐋 𝐀𝐋𝐈𝐄𝐍 𝐄𝐒𝐂𝐀𝐏𝐄 𝐈𝐂𝐄
On December 18, 2025, Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan was convicted of felony obstruction of justice for helping an… pic.twitter.com/veIzGszWKJ
— M.A. Rothman (@MichaelARothman) June 16, 2026
Policy analysts have also warned that granting Dugan’s motion would create a dangerous precedent where judges could claim immunity even when they actively interfere with federal immigration enforcement. The prosecution in this case argued that she was not simply managing her courtroom. Instead, they said she deliberately exceeded her authority to help a specific defendant avoid a lawful arrest. By denying her post-trial motions in April 2026, the federal court sent a clear signal: wearing a robe does not create a sanctuary for those who aid illegal immigrants in dodging the law, and elected judges are not above accountability when they obstruct federal officers.[3]
Sources:
[2] Web – Case: United States v. Dugan – Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
[3] Web – The Judge Dugan Case Is More Complicated Than It Seems | Lawfare
[4] Web – Jury finds Wisconsin judge guilty of obstruction for helping an …