Milwaukee judge ICE charges remain at the center of a legal battle after a federal judge rejected efforts to dismiss the case. Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan will face prosecution for allegedly helping an undocumented immigrant avoid arrest by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The decision has sparked debate over judicial independence, federal authority, and immigration enforcement in the United States.
The Court’s Ruling: Immunity Rejected
On August 26, 2025, U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman ruled that Judge Hannah Dugan cannot claim judicial immunity to shield herself from criminal charges. Judicial immunity generally protects judges from civil lawsuits, but it does not extend to criminal cases. Adelman stated that the law does not allow a judge to escape prosecution for actions that may violate federal statutes, even if those actions occurred in a courtroom setting.
Judge Dugan’s legal team had argued that her decisions were part of her judicial responsibilities and therefore protected. However, the ruling made clear that immunity is not absolute and does not apply when allegations involve obstruction or criminal concealment.
Background of the Case
The controversy began in April 2025 when Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an undocumented immigrant, appeared before Judge Dugan in Milwaukee. He was facing a misdemeanor domestic battery charge. At the same time, ICE agents arrived at the courthouse with an administrative warrant, seeking to take him into custody. Unlike a judicial warrant, an administrative warrant is issued by immigration authorities rather than a judge.
According to federal prosecutors, Judge Dugan directed Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out of the courtroom through a side exit after learning ICE officers were waiting. Flores-Ruiz briefly avoided capture but was arrested later following a short chase outside the courthouse. The incident quickly escalated into a national story and drew attention from federal officials.
Dugan was arrested by the FBI on April 25 and later suspended from her judicial role by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The suspension removed her from official duties while the case proceeds.
Legal Arguments and Defense
Dugan’s defense team filed a motion to dismiss the charges earlier this year. They claimed that her actions fell within her authority as a judge and were therefore protected under the doctrine of judicial immunity. They also argued that the prosecution violated principles of state sovereignty and the separation of powers, pointing to the Tenth Amendment as support for their claims.
The defense additionally referenced the 2024 Supreme Court decision in Trump v. United States, which expanded immunity protections for certain official acts. They argued that if a former president could claim immunity, a state judge should also be entitled to similar protections when carrying out her duties. This interpretation was supported by an amicus brief submitted by more than 130 retired judges, who warned that prosecuting Dugan could set a dangerous precedent that discourages judicial independence.
Despite these arguments, Judge Adelman sided with prosecutors. He emphasized that judicial immunity does not extend to acts that may constitute crimes, and any disputes over the facts must be addressed at trial rather than dismissed at the early stages.
The Charges Against Judge Dugan
Judge Dugan faces two separate criminal charges. The first is a misdemeanor count for concealing an individual in order to prevent arrest. The second is a felony count of obstruction of official proceedings, which carries far more serious consequences. If convicted, she could face up to six years in prison and fines of up to $350,000.
Prosecutors argue that Dugan’s actions undermined federal immigration enforcement and set a troubling example for other judges. They contend that no one, not even a sitting judge, is above the law.
Political and Public Reactions
The case has fueled intense political debate. Supporters of Judge Dugan argue that she acted within her discretion to protect due process in her courtroom. They believe her arrest and prosecution are politically motivated and part of a larger effort by the Trump administration to intimidate judges who resist federal immigration crackdowns.
Critics, however, view her actions as a clear violation of the law. They argue that judges must remain neutral arbiters of the law, not actors who interfere with law enforcement. To them, allowing Dugan’s conduct to go unpunished would weaken the rule of law and erode trust in the judicial system.
Former judges and legal scholars remain divided. While some have expressed concern that the case could discourage judges from exercising independence, others argue that the line must be drawn when judicial actions cross into criminal behavior.
Broader Implications for Judicial Authority
This case highlights the tension between state judicial authority and federal immigration enforcement. Immigration law is primarily a federal responsibility, but state courts frequently encounter cases involving undocumented immigrants. The Dugan case raises the question of how far a state judge can go in limiting or interfering with federal enforcement actions that occur inside or near a courtroom.
It also brings attention to the limits of judicial immunity. While the doctrine is designed to allow judges to make decisions without fear of personal liability, it was never intended to be a shield for criminal acts. The ruling against Dugan makes clear that even judges must answer to federal law when accused of obstruction.
What Happens Next
The case will continue in federal court, with a scheduling hearing set for early September 2025. Dugan’s attorneys may still appeal the ruling to higher courts, which could delay the trial into 2026. If no appeal succeeds, the case will proceed to trial where a jury will determine whether her actions amounted to criminal obstruction.
For now, Dugan remains suspended from the bench. The outcome of her trial could determine whether she ever returns to judicial service. If convicted, her career in law and public service would likely come to an end.
Key Takeaways
The Milwaukee judge ICE charges case is shaping up to be one of the most closely watched legal battles of 2025. It is significant not only for the future of Judge Hannah Dugan but also for broader issues of judicial independence, federal authority, and immigration policy. The ruling against her immunity claim sets the stage for a full trial that could have lasting consequences for the relationship between state courts and federal law enforcement.
Do Follow USA Glory On Instagram
Read Next – Trump threatens Chicago troops, Gov. Pritzker responds
