An attorney for Hannah Dugan argued in court that a new appeals court ruling from Virginia means a jury’s guilty verdict of the former Milwaukee County judge on a charge she obstructed federal immigration agents should be overturned.
A prosecutor countered in the June 3 hearing that the Virginia prosecution is different than the Dugan case and asked U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman to reject the defense effort.
The case has drawn nationwide attention after federal agents arrested the judge at the Milwaukee County Courthouse in April of 2025, a week after a target of a deportation effort appeared in her courtroom.
On a day Dugan was supposed to be sentenced, the proceedings instead featured arguments about how the case was charged. Dugan herself was in court.
Adelman asked probing questions of both sides and may have been tougher on the government, but he didn’t clearly tip which way he may go. Adelman made no ruling at the end of the 40-minute hearing. He is expected to issue a written order in the coming weeks.
If Adelman sides with the defense, the case could be dismissed, as the Virginia case was. If he stands by his earlier ruling and upolds the verdict, Dugan’s sentencing hearing will be rescheduled.
In either case, the Dugan case is almost certainly headed for the 7th Circuit of Appeals.
The case, the first of its kind to go to trial, thrust Dugan to the forefront of a clash between the judiciary and the Trump administration as it executes a broad immigration crackdown.
A jury found Dugan guilty of obstructing federal immigration proceedings, a felony, and not guilty of a misdemeanor charge of concealing a fugitive whom ICE agents were seeking to arrest.
Was it law enforcement activity or a proceeding?
The arguments pivot on the definition of “a proceeding.”
Dugan was found guilty of obstructing a proceeding, namely a civil action by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to remove undocumented immigrant Eduard Flores-Ruiz, who was appearing before Dugan on battery charges in April 2025.
Dugan and another judge entered the public corridor, questioned the federal agents and directed them to the chief judge’s office. Dugan returned to her courtroom, called Flores-Ruiz’s case, and then led him and his lawyer into a hallway reserved for staff and jurors.
Flores-Ruiz and his attorney emerged in the public corridor. Agents followed. Flores-Ruiz was arrested outside after a short foot chase.
Dugan’s team has argued the agents were taking law enforcement actions but that was not part of a proceeding.
Prosecutors argued agents’ actions outside Dugan’s courtroom were part of ICE’s proceeding against Flores-Ruiz. To support their argument, they cited the Virginia case of an undocumented immigrant, Dennis Hernandez, before it was overturned.
Adelman cited the Hernandez case, too.
“I found Hernandez and the cases it cites persuasive on this point,” Adelman wrote in a decision and order on jury instructions.
In court, defense attorney Steve Biskupic told Adelman the government’s earlier arguments were not “frivolous,” and Adelman’s rulings were not “lawless” because both were based on a valid district case.
“It is now overturned,” Biskupic said, noting the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals is the first to rule whether ICE agent actions are part of a proceeding.
Executive Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Frohling said the Hernandez case was decided wrongly and, in any case, differs from the Dugan case. He also noted the ruling doesn’t apply in Wisconsin.
“It is not controlling, and it’s not compelling,” Frohling said of the Virginia case, citing a 7th Circuit ruling he said supports the Dugan prosecution.
Overturned case key to defense argument
In the Virginia case, Hernandez was taken into custody by ICE and later escaped. After he was recaptured, Hernandez was indicted for obstructing “a pending immigration proceeding.”
The district court in Virginia upheld the conviction, but the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals said the ICE action did not constitute a “pending proceeding,” which was required under the federal obstruction statute.
Appeals Court Judge Roger Gregory, an appointee of Democratic President Bill Clinton, was joined by Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum, an appointee of Republican Donald Trump, in voting to overturn Hernandez.
“So, while the Government argues that ICE’s power to swear out subpoenas and issue warrants in an investigation turns its enforcement actions into a ‘proceeding,’ possessing such powers alone is not enough,” Gregory wrote.
Judge J. Harvin Wilkinson, an appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan, dissented, saying Congress envisioned “a proceeding” to be one of several actions by law enforcement.
“The majority, by contrast, would chop this whole process into little pieces, demarcated by court decisions which will take years to play out,” Wilkinson wrote.
The ruling came just days after Adelman had rejected an effort by Dugan’s team to overturn the verdict. That prompted a defense request for Adelman to reconsider.
In its response, prosecutors wrote Adelman did not make the Hernandez ruling the “lynchpin” of his earlier findings. Prosecutors also pointed to several other cases they say support their prosecution.
Dugan is off the bench, unlikely to get any prison
Dugan, 67, resigned from the bench on Jan. 3, as an effort to remove her through impeachment was mounting within the Republican-controlled state Legislature.
A judge for nine years, Dugan faces up to five years in prison, but it is unlikely she would get time behind bars.
For a defendant with no criminal history convicted of a nonviolent crime, federal sentencing guidelines generally call for probation.
This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Dugan’s lawyers ask judge to overturn verdict, citing Virginia case
Reporting by John Diedrich, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel / Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
By John Diedrich, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel | USA TODAY Network
