A Milwaukee judge now stands convicted of obstruction, a stunning verdict that shakes the foundation of judicial trust.
Late Thursday, Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan was found guilty of obstruction for aiding a Mexican immigrant, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, in evading federal authorities at the courthouse, The Hill reported.
The jury, after six hours of tense deliberation, acquitted her of concealing Flores-Ruiz, yet the obstruction charge carries a potential five-year prison term. First-time offenders often dodge the maximum, but the stain on Dugan’s record remains a heavy burden.
Dugan’s troubles stem from a courtroom incident where she guided Flores-Ruiz, facing misdemeanor battery charges, out a private door. She knew federal agents awaited him outside for immigration violations, yet chose a path that smelled of defiance.
Audio from the courtroom captured her telling a court reporter she’d “get the heat” for this move. That casual admission suggests she understood the gamble, and still rolled the dice against the law’s clear intent.
Agents, forced to pursue Flores-Ruiz through traffic, testified to the chaos her decision unleashed. One officer recalled feeling they were in a “bad spot,” a polite way of saying Dugan turned a routine arrest into a dangerous game.
Dugan’s legal team argued she followed a draft courthouse policy by directing agents to the chief judge. They paint her as a rule-follower, not a rogue, caught in a messy clash of authority.
Her attorney, Steven Biskupic, fired back with, “Now, after the fact, everyone wants to blame Judge Dugan.” Convenient scapegoating, he implies, but it sidesteps the reality of her steering a man out the back to dodge a lawful arrest.
The defense also framed this as government overreach, with attorney Jason Luczak scoffing, “Give me a break,” at the idea Dugan would tank her career for a fleeting act of rebellion. Yet, risking a career for a cause reeks of the activist mindset conservatives have long warned against in the judiciary.
Prosecutors pulled no punches, arguing Dugan’s frustration with courthouse immigration arrests fueled her actions. Assistant U.S. Attorney Kelly Brown Watzka declared, “A judge does not have absolute authority to do whatever she wants whenever she puts on her robe,” a sharp reminder of accountability.
They insisted her moves gave Flores-Ruiz a literal escape hatch, buying him precious minutes to flee. Assistant U.S. Attorney Rick Frohling clarified this wasn’t about debating immigration enforcement but about safeguarding legal integrity.
Dugan’s arrest in April at her own courthouse, followed by a May indictment, underscores the gravity of this breach. When judges play fast and loose with federal mandates, public trust in the system takes a brutal hit.
This case emerges from the Trump administration’s firm stance on immigration, a policy that sought to secure borders but often clashed with local resistance. Dugan’s conviction sends a signal that personal objections to federal directives don’t excuse bending the rules.
Critics might argue she’s a victim of an overly harsh crackdown, but laws apply equally, whether you wear a robe or not. Her actions, however well-intentioned, undermined the very order she swore to uphold.
As sentencing looms, the broader lesson cuts deep for a nation wrestling with immigration debates. Judges must enforce law, not rewrite it from the bench, lest we slide into a system where personal belief trumps public duty.
