Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan will have to face federal charges after a U.S. district judge ruled that she cannot shield herself with judicial immunity—an early but significant blow to her defense strategy.

The ruling came from U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, who determined that the conduct Dugan is accused of falls outside the traditional protections afforded to judges. Although judges typically enjoy broad immunity for actions taken from the bench, Adelman said the allegations in this case extend beyond the limits of lawful judicial discretion.

In his written decision, Adelman emphasized that immunity is not automatic; it must be justified. “The official seeking absolute immunity bears the burden of showing that such immunity is warranted for the function in question,” he wrote. “On this record, I cannot conclude that the defendant’s alleged conduct fits within even a narrow version of judicial immunity.”

The ruling ensures the criminal case moves forward—an extremely unusual circumstance for a sitting judge.

The Confrontation at the Courthouse

Dugan was indicted in April following an incident stemming from an April 18 court appearance involving Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a noncitizen charged locally with three misdemeanor battery counts. According to prosecutors, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrived at the courthouse intending to detain Flores-Ruiz after his hearing.

Prosecutors allege that Judge Dugan, after learning of the agents’ presence, confronted them in a courthouse hallway. She reportedly advised the plainclothes officers that they could not make an arrest without a judicial warrant—something federal officers are not required to obtain for immigration detentions.

According to the indictment and courthouse surveillance footage, Dugan then directed the agents to the chief judge’s office and proceeded to handle Flores-Ruiz’s case off the record, rather than in the scheduled hearing. Prosecutors say she allowed Flores-Ruiz and his attorney to leave through a rear exit, allegedly in an attempt to avoid ICE detection.

Despite the alleged effort to help him evade the arrest, ICE agents located and detained Flores-Ruiz later that same afternoon.

The Defense’s Argument

Dugan’s attorneys moved to dismiss the charges on the grounds of judicial immunity. They argued that even if her decisions were controversial, she acted within her judicial role and therefore cannot be criminally prosecuted for those actions.

Her legal team also invoked constitutional arguments, saying the federal government was violating the separation of powers by attempting to criminally charge a state judge over courtroom decisions. They claimed the federal charges infringe on state judicial independence and violate the Tenth Amendment.

The defense noted that immunity does not cover criminal acts wholly unrelated to a judge’s duties—such as bribery or deliberate constitutional violations—but insisted that Dugan’s actions were tied to her responsibilities from the bench.

The Judge’s Rejection

Judge Adelman rejected these arguments entirely.

He ruled that the indictment describes a series of actions—interfering with federal officers, potentially misleading them about the law, and facilitating a defendant’s exit through a restricted path—that do not fit within the scope of legitimate judicial authority.

“There is no basis for granting immunity simply because some of the allegations describe conduct that could, under ordinary circumstances, be associated with judicial duties,” Adelman wrote. He concluded that the question of guilt must be addressed in court, not dismissed through immunity claims.

An Unusual Case Drawing National Attention

The case is attracting widespread interest due to its unprecedented nature. While ideological clashes between federal immigration authorities and local officials are frequent, criminal charges against a judge for allegedly obstructing federal officers remain almost unheard of.

Legal analysts say the case could influence how courts nationwide interpret the boundaries of judicial immunity—particularly in politically charged contexts involving cooperation, or lack thereof, with federal agencies.

What Comes Next

A hearing is scheduled for September 3, and both prosecutors and defense attorneys have expressed interest in beginning a trial before year’s end. No firm trial date has been set.

Flores-Ruiz, the defendant at the center of the controversy, remains in ICE custody as he awaits immigration proceedings. The Milwaukee County District Attorney’s office has declined to comment on whether his local criminal charges are still active.

If Dugan is ultimately convicted, penalties could range from fines to imprisonment, depending on the final charges sustained at trial. The U.S. Attorney’s Office has stated that it will not issue further comments while the case is pending.

For now, Judge Dugan continues to serve on the bench—her future resting on the outcome of a rare and closely watched prosecution that could reshape the legal boundaries between state judicial power and federal enforcement authority.