On December 18, disgraced Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan was found guilty of one count of felony obstruction for her role in helping illegal immigrant Eduardo Flores-Ruiz attempt to evade ICE. Democrats spent years telling us "no one is above the law," and a Wisconsin jury gladly reminded them that they aren't above the law, either.
Some likened Dugan's conviction to Nazi Germany, which used to persecute judges who didn't obey the regime. But that's not what happened here. ICE has every legal authority — under laws written by past Congresses and signed by past Presidents — to enforce America's immigration laws. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution also means state and local laws concerning ICE and federal law enforcement aren't worth the paper they're written on.
Dugan's trial lasted four days, with the jury deliberating for around six hours before finding her guilty of felony obstruction and not guilty of a misdemeanor concealment charge. Dugan didn't take the stand in her defense. During deliberations, the jury had several questions for presiding U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, including whether or not Dugan would have had to know the name of the person ICE was looking for on the day in question.
According to Fox6, the jury first asked about whether Dugan would have to know the identity of the subject in the ICE arrest warrant "as it relates to the language in the charges." The defense argued Dugan would have to know, based on the wording of the indictment, that the warrant was for Eduardo Flores-Ruiz. Prosecutors said Dugan would have only needed to know there was a warrant for a specific person, not a name.
After some deliberation and arguments, Adelman sided with the defense and instructed the jurors that Dugan "needed to know the identity of the subject of the warrant." Dugan was later found not guilty of this misdemeanor charge.
A similar question came up later in deliberations with the jury, again asking if Dugan needed to know the identity of the subject of a pending proceeding (again, Flores-Ruiz). Prosecutors said Dugan did not, while the defense argued she did. Adelman later decided for the prosecution and to tell the jury that Dugan needed to "know of the pending proceeding, the defendant needed to have sufficient knowledge of the proceeding." Dugan was found guilty of this obstruction charge.
It is now those questions that are the focus of Dugan's defense team, and the groundwork they're going to use to ask Judge Adleman to set aside the jury's guilty verdict.
"You make arguments that the jury was improperly instructed, especially on those questions, that's all fair game..."
— Matt Smith (@mattsmith_news) December 19, 2025
Hannah Dugan's defense team is preparing to ask Judge Lynn Adelman to set aside the jury's guilty verdict
SUN ON UPFRONT: Dugan defense attorney Steve Biskupic pic.twitter.com/932Hz44iD5
"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."
In other words, no, Dugan does not accept the verdict against her.
According to WisPolitics, Judge Adelman did not set a sentencing hearing, but did schedule a briefing based on the defense's motion. "The question is whether the jurors were presented with the proper answer to the questions that were given," Biskupic added. "We certainly argued at the time that, especially for count two, that the change from what was answered in count one, in the change in the answer in count two, obviously was all the difference in the world."