Checklist: explain the court’s recent ruling; outline the charges and conviction; report the judge’s immunity claim and the court’s rejection; note reactions and next legal steps.
Former Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan, convicted of felony obstruction for allegedly helping an undocumented person leave a courthouse in April 2025, lost a bid this week to toss her conviction. A federal judge issued a detailed order rejecting Dugan’s argument that she enjoyed blanket criminal immunity because of her judicial role. That decision keeps the December conviction intact for now while the legal fight continues.
The incident in question was recorded on courthouse cameras and involved Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, who faced state domestic violence charges and was the subject of an ICE enforcement action. After the footage circulated, Dugan said she was shielded from prosecution by her office, claiming authority to manage courtroom matters as she saw fit. Prosecutors took a different view and charged her with obstructing federal agents.
U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman on April 6 issued a 39-page order, denying an appeal by Dugan’s legal team and also rejecting the claim that she is immune from such prosecution.
“After surveying the caselaw, I concluded that there is no general rule of criminal immunity for judges, nor was there a basis for granting immunity simply because some of the allegations in the indictment described conduct that could be considered ‘part of a judge’s job,'” Adelman wrote.
Judge Adelman’s opinion focused on precedent and the limits of judicial function, saying that acts that amount to helping someone evade federal officers fall outside typical judicial duties. The order parsed case law and concluded that no broad criminal immunity covers the conduct alleged in the indictment. That undercuts the core of Dugan’s defense and paves the way for final sentencing and appeals.
She helped an illegal SCURRY out the back door, but security cameras captured the whole thing. There’s no running from this one.
Dugan was suspended by the state supreme court in April 2025 and retired in January 2026 after the federal jury’s verdict. The jury found her guilty in December 2025, and the federal ruling this week denied her motion to overturn that verdict. Her team promptly stated they will appeal, arguing trial flaws and inconsistent jury findings as grounds for further review.
Dugan filed the motion to dismiss, arguing that she had “absolute judicial immunity” and that the prosecution violated the Constitution’s separation of powers by “intruding on the authority of state judges to manage their own courtrooms and proceedings.”
The defense keeps those arguments alive in public statements, insisting the actions were lawful and part of a judge’s independent authority. The prosecution and Judge Adelman rejected that framing, saying the conduct crossed the line from courtroom management to active obstruction. Adelman pointed out that simply labeling conduct as related to a judge’s role does not automatically cloak it in immunity.
Reactions to the case have been intense, with critics on one side calling the prosecution an overreach and others arguing accountability is necessary when officials break federal law. Political commentary around the case has inflamed passions, but the legal process is following appellate paths rather than immediate political remedies. For Dugan, the next steps are a direct appeal, and possible review by higher courts if those appeals are filed.
“We continue to maintain that Hannah Dugan acted lawfully and within her independent authority as a judge,” the statement said. “The inconsistent jury verdicts demonstrate that the trial proceedings were flawed, and we plan to appeal.”
Judge Adelman, who handled the original trial, is the author of the order denying the post-trial motion, and his reasoning emphasized statutory limits and case law rather than partisan points. The decision leaves the federal conviction standing and narrows the immediate path for Dugan to obtain relief without taking the matter to an appellate tribunal. Legal observers expect the appeal to test the contours of judicial immunity in criminal cases.
Remember this?
The ruling does not foreclose appellate review, and Dugan’s lawyers signaled they will press the case to the next level. Until higher courts weigh in, the federal conviction remains the operative legal event and shapes the practical consequences for Dugan’s career and any potential sentencing. The dispute over judicial immunity is likely to be a focal point in any appeals that follow.
Add comment