Trump DOJ Battles Judge Accused of Blocking ICE in High-Stakes Sentencing Fight

With her July 8 sentencing approaching, former Wisconsin judge Hannah Dugan is pushing back against federal prosecutors’ call for a “serious sentence” after a jury found her guilty last year of impeding ICE agents during a courthouse arrest.

Attorneys for Dugan and the U.S. Justice Department have submitted competing sentencing memos, each presenting sharply different views of the case and what punishment, if any, is appropriate.

In their filing, prosecutors described Dugan’s actions as “a serious offense” that deserves “a correspondingly serious sentence.” Her defense team, however, accused the DOJ of using the case to “scare and cast public shame” on people who might act “contrary to ICE enforcement at county courthouses.” They are asking that Dugan be sentenced to time served, noting she spent less than a day in custody.

“Hannah Dugan for nearly seven decades has been an exemplary member of this community,” her attorneys wrote in their sentencing memo. “She, of course, has no prior criminal record; the offense was isolated and unique; and there is no possibility of her repeating it. She was handcuffed and shackled during her arrest, photographed publicly by plan, and intentionally shamed from coast to coast by the leadership of the U.S. Department of Justice and FBI. There is no need for further deterrence, either specifically or generally.”

Dugan, 67, was indicted last year after prosecutors accused her of helping Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican national who had appeared in her Milwaukee County Circuit courtroom on a domestic abuse-related misdemeanor battery case, avoid ICE officers waiting at the courthouse. At trial, prosecutors argued that Dugan interfered with the attempted immigration arrest by directing Flores-Ruiz to exit through a jury door after his hearing.

Prosecutors also alleged that Dugan “falsely” told ICE agents they needed a judicial warrant before they could take Flores-Ruiz into custody. The encounter took place on April 18, 2025. Dugan was charged by criminal complaint less than a week later and formally indicted in May 2025. In December 2025, a federal jury convicted her of one felony count of obstructing or impeding a proceeding before a department or agency of the United States. Jurors acquitted her of a misdemeanor count accusing her of concealing an individual to prevent his discovery and arrest.

The Justice Department framed the sentencing decision as a test of accountability. “A serious sentence is necessary to reaffirm a foundational principle of our criminal justice system: no one is above the law, particularly those entrusted with administering it,” prosecutors wrote. “Anything less risks sending the opposite message — that personal loyalties, subjective viewpoints, or self-interest can supersede legal duty.”

Federal prosecutors argue that judges are “entrusted with tremendous discretion, but there is a line they cannot cross,” according to the DOJ’s sentencing memo. “They may disagree with the law, question policy, or sympathize with those who appear before them. But they cannot use the power of judicial office to obstruct federal law enforcement officers to help someone evade arrest,” the memo says. “The defendant crossed that line.”

Prosecutors say “that, combined with her lack of remorse or sense of accountability,” warrants a sentence that reflects the “serious nature of her conduct” and its broader impact on the justice system. Dugan’s team, meanwhile, says she “has been punished enough,” per their memo.

“Whether deserved or not, the ongoing residual effect was to force Hannah Dugan into life as a recluse,” her lawyers say. “Based on actual threats and a legitimate fear of those threats against her and those associated with her, she moved out of her home. She gave up her usual life of attending community events, including public religious services. Security measures needed to be taken before she could travel, even to her required court proceedings in this case. These effects will persist well into the future regardless of the sentence this court imposes.”

Dugan’s attorneys add, “The nine-year judicial career of Judge Dugan (and almost 40-year legal career) came to an end because of approximately five minutes of immediate reactions to learning that an ICE enforcement action was to take place on the sixth floor near her courtroom.”

Prosecutors say Dugan was ultimately “entrusted with authority and responsibility that few citizens possess” and “rather than honoring those obligations, she used her position to interfere with the lawful administration of justice,” according to the DOJ’s sentencing memo. “That betrayal magnifies the seriousness of the offense,” the memo states.

“This is not a case involving a momentary lapse in judgment followed by reflection or remorse. Instead, the defendant has continued to characterize her conduct, which a jury found criminal beyond a reasonable doubt, as appropriate, justified, and legally permissible,” prosecutors say. “To be clear, the government does not seek punishment for the defendant’s exercise of her constitutional right to trial. Rather, the Court simply should consider the defendant’s continued minimization of her conduct and persistent refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing when evaluating the need to promote respect for the law.”

Dugan’s legal team filed a motion for a new trial in late January with claims that recent court cases, including one in November 2025, established a “common-law privilege” that bars civil arrests from happening inside courthouses. “This privilege specifically precludes ICE courthouse arrests for deportations or removal,” the motion said. Federal prosecutors insisted that was not the case with Flores-Ruiz.

“Arrests at the courthouse are a common practice and can be made in a public hallway with or even without a warrant based on probable cause,” the DOJ said in its response. “Because she knew ICE could operate in the hallways, Dugan prepared a sign for her courtroom door, stating that if any attorney, witness coordinator, or court official felt unsafe coming to court in person, they could request to appear by Zoom.”

A federal judge ruled last month that Dugan’s conviction would not be overturned. She plans to appeal her case to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, regardless of the sentence she receives.

“The defendant’s refusal to acknowledge the wrongfulness of her conduct raises legitimate concerns about respect for the law and suggests a continuing belief that her personal disagreement with federal immigration law justified her obstruction of lawful government functions,” federal prosecutors concluded in their sentencing memo. “That mindset does not reflect well on the defendant and heightens the need for the Court’s sentence to promote respect for the law and restore confidence that the justice system holds itself accountable. Public officials must understand that they cannot substitute personal viewpoints for legal duty.”

Dugan reportedly faces up to five years in prison, but prosecutors noted in their memo that the average sentence imposed is 16 months. Dugan’s lawyers submitted nearly 20 letters of support for a sentence of time served. The DOJ has not recommended a specific sentence, only that it be “serious.”

“As former ambassador and mayor Tom Barrett wrote in his letter to the court, the guilty verdict in this case alone caused Hannah Dugan to resign her judicial position: ‘For her, it was an extraordinarily deep price to pay,'” her team’s memo concludes. “Joseph Wall, referring to the intentional and unnecessary public humiliation of Dugan’s arrest, echoes the sentiment that she already has been punished enough.”