MILWAUKEE — A former Wisconsin judge was fined $5,000 but avoided prison or probation after being convicted of obstructing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers during an attempted arrest last year. Hannah Dugan, 67, a former Milwaukee County Circuit Judge, received the sentence on July 8 from U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, who characterized the offense as a brief lapse by a person with a longstanding record of public service.

Dugan was convicted of felony obstruction in December 2025 for intervening when ICE agents sought to detain Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a defendant facing battery charges before her court, on April 18, 2025. According to court records, Dugan questioned the validity of the ICE warrant and assisted Flores-Ruiz in evading immediate arrest. The incident prompted an FBI investigation, leading to Dugan’s arrest a week later and sparking protests in Milwaukee.

At sentencing, Judge Adelman noted that while federal guidelines recommended 15 to 20 months in prison—with a maximum sentence of five years—prison time and probation were not warranted given Dugan’s extensive public service and low risk of reoffending. The judge described the case as one of a fundamentally good person making a poor decision in response to immigration enforcement actions. “A few minutes of conduct” by an individual dedicated to aiding the disadvantaged merited a fine rather than incarceration, he said.

Dugan emotionally addressed the court during the hearing, expressing remorse and asserting that her actions were intended as part of her judicial duties. She resigned from the bench amid calls for impeachment related to the case. Her legal counsel announced plans to appeal the conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, arguing that judicial immunity should protect her and challenging the application of the obstruction statute.

Prosecutors acknowledged Dugan’s decades of service to vulnerable populations but emphasized the seriousness of a judge interfering with the enforcement of federal law, underscoring the institutional damage caused by such conduct. Supporters highlighted her public service record and deemed the monetary penalty an appropriate response.

The case drew attention to tensions between local judicial actors and federal immigration enforcement and raised questions about the limits of judicial authority in criminal proceedings involving immigration matters.