Former Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan was convicted on a felony obstruction charge for helping an undocumented man avoid ICE, her trial was short and the jury found her guilty while acquitting her on a related misdemeanor, and her defense is now preparing motions asking the judge to set aside the verdict.
On December 18, a jury returned a guilty verdict against Hannah Dugan on one count of felony obstruction related to efforts to help Eduardo Flores-Ruiz evade ICE. The trial moved quickly — four days in court and about six hours of jury deliberations — which underscored how focused the prosecution’s case was. Dugan did not testify during the proceedings.
Outside the courtroom the reaction split along predictable lines, with some commentators comparing the conviction to historical political persecution. Those comparisons miss the legal point: federal immigration enforcement rests on statutes passed by Congress and signed by presidents of both parties, and the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause places federal law above conflicting state or local actions. This case turned on whether Dugan’s conduct met the elements of obstruction, not on a political argument about immigration policy.
The jury returned a guilty finding on the obstruction charge while acquitting on a misdemeanor concealment count, a result that shows jurors weighed the different legal standards separately. During deliberations they sent questions back to the presiding judge asking for clarifications, including whether Dugan would have needed to know the name of the person ICE sought on that day. Those procedural queries are now central to the defense strategy.
— Matt Smith (@mattsmith_news)
“Well, you always…the Constitutional system that she’s devoted her life to is that we rely upon the jury system,” said Dugan’s defense attorney Steve Biskupic. “Now, you know, you make your arguments that the jury was improperly instructed, especially on those questions, that’s all fair game for anybody in a case.”
“But the other part of the challenge,” Biskupic continued, “is again, you know, this judicial authority…what she was empowered to do against the federal government, how that played out. Now we have a much fuller record of that.”
Biskupic has signaled the defense will press procedural points and argue the jury may not have been given proper guidance on key questions. The team is preparing a motion asking the judge to set aside the guilty verdict, saying jurors were not answered correctly during their deliberations. Judge Lynn Adelman did not set a sentencing date and instead scheduled briefing on the defense motion, which keeps the case open while legal arguments proceed.
The defense is expected to challenge jury instructions and to point to the record that, they say, shows ambiguity in how counts should have been explained. Those efforts are routine in federal cases when jurors ask clarifying questions; raising those issues preserves appellate rights. From a conservative perspective, insisting on precise instructions and respect for the jury’s role is consistent with defending the rule of law, not opposing it.
Prosecutors will counter that the facts fit the obstruction charge: actions intended to impede a federal officer from carrying out an arrest. The verdict on the felony count reflects the jury’s judgment about intent and conduct on that day. In federal prosecutions the government often relies on documentary evidence and testimony that, when aligned, can persuade jurors quickly.
This case also spotlights the tension between state or local actors and federal immigration enforcement, an issue that comes up often in courtrooms and legislatures. Federal supremacy means local decisions cannot legally block federal officers from doing their jobs, but disputes arise over how far local officials can go when they believe a conflict exists. Whatever the policy arguments, courts resolve liability by applying law to facts, and that is what the jury did here.
Dugan’s team will argue the record supports setting aside the verdict and seeking a new outcome, while prosecutors will argue the conviction should stand as a proper application of obstruction law. If the motion to set aside the verdict fails, the case will move toward sentencing and then likely to appeal. Either way, the procedural steps ahead will be watched closely by those who care about judicial independence and federal authority.
The short, sharp nature of the trial matters for people on both sides of the political divide: it shows how federal cases can proceed rapidly and why defense counsel must preserve every argument. For Republicans who emphasize law and order, the verdict is a reminder that no official is beyond legal accountability. For defenders of local discretion, the post-trial motions will be a test of how courts balance local judgment and federal supremacy.
Regardless of where readers land on the politics, the next legal moves will determine whether the jury’s verdict stands or is set aside. The briefing scheduled by the judge will focus on the jurors’ questions and whether the instructions they received were correct. That procedural work will shape whether this matter ends at sentencing or continues through appeals and further litigation.
