Federal Judge Issues Decision In Dugan Case
Sometimes, the arrogance of power is so blinding that those who wield it begin to believe they exist above the very laws they swore to uphold. Few cases illustrate this better than that of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan, now facing the consequences of her spectacular lapse in judgment after she allegedly helped an illegal immigrant slip out the side door of her courthouse to evade federal authorities.
The details are almost cinematic—though not in the heroic sense Dugan may have imagined. In April, federal immigration officers arrived at her courthouse to detain Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a 31-year-old unlawfully present in the United States.
Instead of allowing the legal process to proceed, Judge Dugan, prosecutors say, took matters into her own hands. She personally escorted Flores-Ruiz and his lawyer out a back exit in an apparent attempt to thwart federal agents waiting nearby. The plan failed. ICE agents arrested him anyway—after a foot chase. The only thing Dugan accomplished was drawing the spotlight onto herself.
News
Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan loses her bid to dismiss her indictment on immunity and 10th Amendment grounds.
The judge will hold a hearing on Sept. 3 to discuss scheduling.
Ruling https://t.co/FtLaEz5sYj pic.twitter.com/TJnF4IASzP
— Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) August 26, 2025
Now indicted on both misdemeanor and felony charges, Dugan faces up to six years in prison and a hefty fine. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has already suspended her from the bench, pending the outcome. Still, she clings to a defense as brazen as her alleged actions: that she enjoys some sort of “judicial immunity” because she was acting in her official role.
This week, her bid for dismissal hit a wall. U.S. District Judge Lynne Adelman, no right-wing hardliner but a Clinton appointee, flatly rejected the motion.
His words cut to the core of Dugan’s flawed argument: “There is no basis for granting immunity simply because some of the allegations in the indictment describe conduct that could be considered part of a judge’s job.” Translation: wearing the robe doesn’t give you license to break the law.
It is worth pausing here to recognize how unusual, even unprecedented, this is. Judges hold great authority precisely because the public trusts they will wield it impartially, without turning their courtrooms into arenas of personal activism. By allegedly transforming her courtroom into a sanctuary and herself into a getaway driver in a robe, Dugan shattered that trust.
Her attorneys insist she did “nothing wrong.” The facts suggest otherwise. This wasn’t adjudicating a case—it was undermining the law itself.