Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan Found Guilty on Felony Charge in Federal Case

The verdict is in, and it is a serious one.

Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan has been found guilty on a federal felony charge, marking a dramatic and consequential end to a closely watched trial that raised questions about judicial neutrality, abuse of authority, and the limits of personal ideology inside a courtroom.

After roughly six hours of jury deliberations, the jury returned a split verdict. Judge Dugan was found not guilty on the misdemeanor charge of concealing an individual to prevent discovery or arrest. However, she was found guilty on the more serious felony charge: obstructing or impeding a proceeding before a department or agency of the United States.

That felony conviction carries a maximum sentence of up to five years in federal prison, along with potential financial penalties. Had she been convicted on both counts, Judge Dugan could have faced up to six years total.

The Defense’s Final Day: A Risky Strategy

The final day of testimony was notable for how little the defense presented. Judge Dugan called only four witnesses, and she did not testify in her own defense.

The most prominent defense witness was former Milwaukee mayor and former U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg, Tom Barrett, who appeared as a character witness. Barrett described a decades-long relationship with Dugan, emphasizing her honesty, integrity, and humanity. His testimony aimed to humanize her in the eyes of the jury and reinforce the defense’s argument that she acted with moral conviction rather than criminal intent.

But there was a problem.

Barrett was not present during the events at the courthouse that led to the charges. He offered no firsthand knowledge of what occurred. And while he described Judge Dugan as someone who “tells it like it is,” the defendant herself chose to remain silent.

Legally, Judge Dugan had every right not to testify. Strategically, however, the contrast may have hurt. When a defense leans heavily on character while the defendant declines to explain her actions—especially in a case involving alleged abuse of judicial authority—jurors may draw their own conclusions.

The Prosecution’s Core Argument

Federal prosecutors framed the case around a simple but powerful principle: a courtroom must be a place of neutrality.

They argued that when a judge uses the authority of the bench, the courtroom, and the judicial robe to obstruct federal law enforcement, it undermines the entire justice system. This, they said, was not about politics or immigration policy—it was about a judge exceeding her lawful authority and involving others in that misconduct.

The defense countered that the government was trying to make an example of Judge Dugan and that the prosecution’s version of events was incomplete and misleading.

Because this was a federal case, prosecutors were allowed a rebuttal, after which the judge issued jury instructions and deliberations began.

Jury Questions and Deliberations

During deliberations, the jury posed several questions to the court, including inquiries about ICE policies, warrant procedures, and whether the identity of the individual involved—Eduardo Flores Ruiz—was legally relevant to the charges.

Those questions suggested the jury was carefully parsing the legal elements of the case rather than approaching it emotionally or politically.

Ultimately, the jury concluded that prosecutors had proven the felony charge beyond a reasonable doubt, even if they did not meet that burden on the misdemeanor count.

Why the Felony Conviction Matters

The felony conviction is the most damaging outcome Judge Dugan could have faced short of a full conviction on both counts.

In practical terms, it almost certainly means:

The end of her judicial career

Likely disbarment or loss of her law license

Severe limitations on future employment in the legal profession

While the felony allows for prison time, many legal observers doubt she will be sentenced to incarceration, given her lack of prior criminal history. Probation or supervised release is widely expected. Still, the conviction itself is devastating professionally and reputationally.

Testimony From Her Own Colleagues

One of the most striking aspects of the trial was the testimony from Judge Dugan’s own colleagues, including another judge, her court clerk, and her court reporter—testifying for the prosecution.

That testimony appeared to be a turning point.

From a juror’s perspective, hearing that a sitting judge involved colleagues and court staff in actions that placed them at legal risk may have suggested a broader scheme rather than an isolated lapse in judgment. The sense that others were dragged into the situation—embarrassed, exposed, or disrupted—likely weighed heavily.

What Comes Next

Judge Hannah Dugan now awaits sentencing. While prison is possible, it is far from certain. What is certain is that her career as a judge is over, and her future in the legal profession is deeply in doubt.

The case serves as a stark reminder that judicial authority is not unlimited, and that personal beliefs—no matter how sincerely held—cannot override federal law from the bench.

For supporters, the verdict may feel harsh. For critics, it reinforces the idea that no one, not even a judge, is above the law.

Either way, the message from the jury was clear:
crossing the line from discretion into obstruction carries consequences.