Wisconsin Judge Threatens to Halt Court in Protest of Colleague’s Arrest

Tensions are mounting in Wisconsin’s judiciary following the arrest of a sitting judge accused of shielding an undocumented immigrant from federal authorities. In a move that has shaken the state’s legal community, another judge is now threatening to stop holding court altogether if no protection or guidance is provided.

Judge Monica Isham of Sawyer County issued a striking email to fellow judges statewide, titled “Guidance Requested or I Refuse to Hold Court,” warning that she will not risk the safety of her staff or compromise her ethical standards amid growing federal enforcement actions.

“I will not put myself or my staff—who may feel compelled to help me or our community—in harm’s way,” Isham wrote. “If there is no guidance for us and no support for us, I will refuse to hold court in Branch 2 in Sawyer County.”

Her message comes in response to the arrest of Judge Hannah Dugan, who was charged with obstruction and concealing an individual to prevent arrest. According to federal authorities, Judge Dugan intervened to prevent Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from detaining a Mexican national who appeared before her court on misdemeanor charges.

Federal agents allege that following a court hearing, Dugan directed officers to report to a different office in the courthouse, then led the defendant and his attorney out through a secure side exit, avoiding the ICE agents stationed at the public entrance. The man, later identified as Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, had a pending deportation order. He was eventually taken into custody.

Judge Dugan, elected in 2016 and re-elected unopposed in 2022, is known for her work with legal aid groups and Catholic charities. Her courtroom typically handles misdemeanor-level offenses.

In her email, Judge Isham expressed deep ethical and moral concerns about cooperating with ICE agents inside courtrooms. Drawing on constitutional protections, she stated, “I have no intention of allowing anyone to be taken out of my courtroom by ICE and sent to a concentration camp, especially without due process, as both of the constitutions we swore to uphold require.”

She also suggested she was willing to face personal consequences, writing, “If this costs me my job or gets me arrested, then at least I know I did the right thing.”

The email has triggered both support and criticism. Some legal professionals praised Isham for taking a principled stand, while others, including federal officials, warned that such defiance from within the judiciary could undermine the rule of law.

Harmeet Dhillon, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, called Isham’s declaration “problematic” and hinted that further scrutiny of such statements may be necessary.

Meanwhile, federal prosecutors have presented evidence that Judge Dugan knowingly interfered with federal enforcement. According to a criminal complaint, agents from ICE, the FBI, Customs and Border Protection, and the DEA were involved in a coordinated effort to arrest Flores-Ruiz. Dugan’s alleged actions temporarily allowed him to evade capture.

Outside of Wisconsin, a similar case has emerged in New Mexico, where a former judge and his wife were arrested for allegedly harboring a known member of a foreign gang. Prosecutors claim the judge provided the suspect with shelter and firearms, despite his illegal status.

These incidents have prompted former border security officials to warn that the judiciary should not assume immunity from federal enforcement. Tom Homan, a former immigration official, stated, “No one is above the law. People are free to hold personal opinions, but when they cross the line into obstructing enforcement, there must be consequences.”

He added that such behavior could pose real risks to community safety, especially when individuals with criminal records or gang affiliations are allowed to slip through the system.

Supporters of Judges Dugan and Isham argue that the issue is not about shielding criminals but about upholding the integrity of the justice system. They contend that courtrooms should remain neutral ground, not a place for sudden immigration enforcement actions that could discourage people from participating in legal proceedings or seeking help.

Opponents argue that by obstructing federal officers or allowing undocumented individuals to avoid arrest, these judges are compromising national security and disrespecting the judicial oath.

For now, Judge Isham awaits further guidance from state leadership. Her refusal to proceed with court duties adds urgency to the growing debate over where judicial responsibility ends and federal authority begins.

As both sides dig in, this confrontation could shape how judges nationwide respond to federal enforcement within their own courtrooms—and may prompt lawmakers to reconsider the boundaries of courtroom sovereignty in the process.