A federal jury found Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan guilty of obstruction. She was charged in April by federal prosecutors with obstruction, a felony, and concealing an individual to avoid arrest, a misdemeanor, after being found guilty of helping a Mexican immigrant evade arrest outside her courtroom.

The panel, composed of seven men and five women, acquitted Dugan of the lesser charge of harboring a wanted person, but found her guilty of obstruction, a crime for which she could face up to five years in prison.

During the reading of the verdict, the 66-year-old judge, who had served nine years on the bench, remained expressionless. A sentencing date was not immediately set.

The verdict, issued after more than six hours of deliberations, sets an unprecedented precedent in the United States and deepens the clash between the judiciary and President Donald Trump's administration on immigration.

A case that shook the courts

The trial placed Dugan at the center of the national controversy over Trump's immigration offensive. The events date back to April 18, when the judge was presiding over a misdemeanor hearing at the Milwaukee County Courthouse. That day, federal agents arrived at the courthouse to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a 31-year-old Mexican man accused of assault who had illegally re-entered the country in 2013. According to the government, Dugan was informed of the agents' presence and went out into the hallway to confront them. She then directed them to the presiding judge's office, while simultaneously moving forward with Flores-Ruiz's case and escorting him, along with his attorney, through a non-public exit into an internal corridor. The immigrant was eventually apprehended after a brief chase outside the building and subsequently deported. Prosecutors argued that these actions were not routine and deliberately created an opportunity to facilitate his escape.They presented videos and audio recordings from the courtroom to bolster their argument.

“The defendant’s actions provided an opportunity for a wanted individual to flee a secure environment. We were not trying to make an example of her. This was necessary to hold Judge Dugan accountable for the actions she took,” stated Acting U.S. Attorney Brad Schimel. “There is no political component to this.”

Defense Announces Legal Battle

Dugan’s attorney, Steven Biskupic, emphasized that the jury issued a split verdict and announced that they will seek to overturn the conviction. “The case is far from over,” he said, noting that the elements of both charges were similar. The defense insisted that the judge acted according to internal protocols and had no intention of obstructing. During the trial, the prosecution presented 19 witnesses, including federal agents and judges, while the defense called judicial colleagues, a public defender, and former Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett. Dugan did not testify. The case, the first in which a state judge has faced trial for obstructing immigration agents, has sparked protests and reignited the debate about the limits of judicial authority in immigration enforcement. For many, the ruling sends a powerful message; for others, it is a worrying sign of the criminalization of judicial decisions in a polarized political climate.A worrying sign of the criminalization of judicial decisions in a polarized political climate.A worrying sign of the criminalization of judicial decisions in a polarized political climate.