Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan just hit a legal roadblock that could land her in career-ending legal trouble, according to The Washington Examiner.
A federal judge ruled this week that the prosecution of Dugan for allegedly aiding an unauthorized migrant in evading law enforcement will move forward, setting the stage for a contentious legal battle.
The decision, handed down by Judge Lynn Adelman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, came after adopting a recommendation from U.S. Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph to deny Dugan’s motion to dismiss the obstruction charges brought by the Department of Justice earlier this year.
Dugan’s defense leaned heavily on a claim of judicial immunity, citing a recent Supreme Court ruling to argue that her actions as a judge shielded her from criminal charges.
Judge Adelman wasn’t buying it, stating, “There is no basis for granting immunity” simply because some actions might seem part of a judge’s duties. Well, that’s a polite slap on the wrist—if a judge can’t hide behind the robe for alleged misconduct, what’s next, accountability for everyone?
Adelman further clarified, “Even if a more limited version of judicial immunity exists, it does not support dismissal.” That’s a double whammy for Dugan’s legal team, who now must pivot to a tougher defense strategy.
The charges against Dugan stem from an incident involving Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an unauthorized migrant, whom she allegedly helped escape federal agents by guiding him and his lawyer out a back door of her courtroom.
Despite the alleged assist, Flores-Ruiz was arrested shortly after slipping out of the courthouse, proving that back doors don’t always lead to freedom when the feds are on your tail.
Roughly a week after Flores-Ruiz’s arrest, Dugan herself was taken into custody, charged with two counts of obstruction that could land her up to six years behind bars and a hefty $350,000 fine if convicted.
Dugan has pleaded not guilty to the charges, but the Wisconsin Supreme Court didn’t wait for a verdict, suspending her from judicial duties shortly after the federal charges were filed.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph weighed in on the immunity debate, noting, “A judge’s actions, even when done in her official capacity, do not bar criminal prosecution if the actions were done in violation of the criminal law.” That’s a stark reminder that wearing a robe doesn’t grant a free pass to bend the rules.
With a hearing scheduled for September 3, 2025, to discuss the case timeline, the legal gears are grinding forward after an earlier trial date in July was postponed indefinitely pending the dismissal motion.
This case isn’t just about one judge—it’s a flashing neon sign about the boundaries of judicial conduct in an era where progressive policies often clash with federal enforcement priorities. While empathy for individual circumstances is human, helping someone dodge the law raises serious questions about impartiality on the bench.
Conservatives watching this unfold might see it as a necessary check on judicial overreach, especially when actions appear to undermine immigration enforcement—a hot-button issue for those who value the rule of law over open-border sentiments.
Yet, it’s worth acknowledging the complexity of Dugan’s position, caught between personal convictions and professional obligations, even if her alleged choices seem misguided.
As this case heads toward a courtroom reckoning, it’s a sobering moment for anyone who believes in accountability, regardless of title or position.
If convicted, Dugan’s story could serve as a cautionary tale for judges tempted to let personal biases steer their gavel—justice, after all, must remain blind, not backstage directing an escape.