Hannah Dugan sentencing today: What the former judge faces

Last updated: July 8, 2026, 6:32 a.m. CDT

Former Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan is returning to federal court with her freedom, reputation and a nationally watched legal dispute hanging over the hearing. The 67-year-old former judge is scheduled to be sentenced Wednesday after a jury convicted her of felony obstruction in December. Federal guidelines referenced by prosecutors call for 15 to 21 months in prison, while Dugan's lawyers are asking for time served. Whatever sentence U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman imposes, the defense says an appeal will follow.

How Events Unfolded

The case began on April 18, 2025, when federal immigration officers went to the Milwaukee County courthouse to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz. He was scheduled to appear before Dugan in a state battery case after authorities learned he had reentered the United States illegally.

According to the prosecution's case, Dugan confronted agents outside her courtroom and directed them toward the chief judge's office after questioning whether their administrative warrant was sufficient for an arrest. She then led Flores-Ruiz and his attorney through a private jury door. Agents later spotted him in a public corridor, followed him outside and arrested him after a foot chase.

FBI agents arrested Dugan at the courthouse one week later. In December 2025, a jury found her guilty of obstructing a federal proceeding but acquitted her of a misdemeanor charge accusing her of concealing an individual to prevent arrest. She resigned from the bench in early January after nine years as a judge and amid impeachment threats from Republican state lawmakers.

The sentencing hearing is scheduled for 11:15 a.m. CDT in Milwaukee federal court. Cameras are not allowed inside the courthouse. Dugan, who did not testify during her four-day trial, is expected to address the court directly.

Digging Deeper

The dispute is bigger than a routine sentencing fight because both sides frame the case as a test of judicial power, federal immigration enforcement and public trust. Prosecutors argue Dugan used the authority of her office to interfere with federal agents. Her lawyers say the episode was isolated and that she has already paid a severe price through her arrest, conviction, resignation and threats.

Prosecutors have not requested a specific prison term, but they told Adelman that a sentence within the 15-to-21-month guideline range would be reasonable. They also cited federal data showing an average sentence of 16 months for comparable obstruction cases involving defendants with little or no criminal history.

The defense disputes that comparison. University of Wisconsin Law School instructor and criminal defense attorney John Gross told WPR that Dugan's prosecution is unusual enough that standard obstruction cases may not be a useful benchmark. He pointed to a previous federal case involving Massachusetts judge Shelly Joseph, whose criminal charges were later dismissed under a 2022 agreement involving a referral to the state's judicial conduct commission.

Time served

A sentence that credits a defendant with custody already completed and adds no further jail or prison time.

Federal sentencing guidelines

Advisory ranges that help judges evaluate punishment. The sentencing judge is not required to impose the recommended range.

Judicial immunity

A legal protection judges may invoke for actions taken within their official role. Dugan's immunity arguments have not succeeded before the trial court.

What People Are Saying

Executive Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Frohling argued that Dugan crossed a boundary that applies even to judges.

“Judges are entrusted with tremendous discretion, but there is a line they cannot cross. The defendant crossed that line.”

Defense attorneys counter that Dugan's conviction and departure from public office already provide deterrence. They highlighted her lack of criminal history, her public service and the claim that the circumstances cannot recur because she is no longer a judge.

Gross also questioned whether incarceration is necessary to protect the public, arguing that the case does not fit the ordinary rationale for imprisoning a dangerous defendant.

Putting It in Perspective

The sentence could shape how future conflicts between local courts and federal immigration officers are viewed. Dugan's case was the first in Wisconsin in which a state judge went to trial on charges of obstructing immigration agents, making the punishment closely watched beyond Milwaukee.

For the Justice Department, prosecutors say the case is about whether public officials may use their positions to obstruct federal law enforcement. For Dugan's supporters and immigrant-rights advocates, the prosecution has become a warning about how the federal government may respond to judges who challenge immigration enforcement practices.

One legal issue is also expected to remain alive on appeal. Dugan's attorneys have cited a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling from another immigration case that found interference with an ICE arrest warrant did not constitute obstruction of a federal proceeding. Adelman rejected the request to overturn Dugan's conviction based on that argument.

Looking Ahead

Adelman is expected to decide between sharply different views of punishment: the defense request for no additional incarceration and a prosecution position that calls for a serious sentence, with the advisory federal range at 15 to 21 months.

Dugan is expected to speak in court before the sentence is imposed. Her attorneys say they plan to appeal regardless of the outcome, meaning the legal fight over her conviction, judicial authority and the meaning of a federal proceeding is expected to continue after Wednesday's hearing.