At first glance, the Milwaukee County Courthouse looked like any other day of routine proceedings: attorneys shuffled documents, defendants waited their turn, and staff moved through the halls carrying out their duties.
Behind the scenes, however, federal investigators were quietly assembling a case that would place a sitting judge under criminal scrutiny and draw nationwide attention.
Judge Hannah Dugan is now facing federal charges, accused of abusing her judicial authority to help an undocumented immigrant avoid detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
A pretrial hearing was held on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, marking a significant step toward a trial scheduled for December. If convicted, Dugan could face up to six years in prison.
Dugan was arrested by FBI agents in April 2025 at the same courthouse where she presides. Details of the arrest were later publicized by FBI Director Kash Patel via the social media platform X. However, following a ruling by U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, Dugan’s defense team is barred from using Patel’s public remarks in their courtroom arguments.
Federal prosecutors have announced plans to call up to 28 witnesses during the trial. These witnesses include law enforcement officers, courthouse staff, and others present in Dugan’s courtroom and surrounding areas at the time of the alleged incident. Jury selection is set to begin on December 11, with opening arguments scheduled for December 15.
According to interim U.S. Attorney Brad Schimel, prosecutors previously offered Dugan a plea deal, which her attorneys rejected. The charges allege that Dugan instructed an undocumented immigrant to leave her courtroom via a side exit when ICE agents arrived to detain him.
Wisconsin Public Radio reports that Dugan faces a felony charge for obstructing or impeding an official proceeding, along with a misdemeanor count for concealing an individual to prevent his discovery or arrest.
John Gross, a law professor at the University of Wisconsin, noted that testimony from law enforcement and court personnel will likely be central to the prosecution’s case.
“This case will focus heavily on what Judge Dugan did on the day in question,” Gross said. “Prosecutors are expected to call nearly all the officers and staff who witnessed the events in the courtroom or hallways.”
Jury selection could prove complex. So far, 34 potential jurors have been dismissed, leaving 90 candidates under consideration. Additional exclusions may occur if questions of impartiality arise. Gross added, “The case has received significant media attention, and because it involves immigration enforcement, people have very strong opinions on both sides.”
Conclusion
Judge Hannah Dugan’s trial represents a rare and highly scrutinized instance of a sitting jurist facing criminal prosecution for actions taken on the bench. With a lengthy witness list, media coverage, and national interest in the broader debate over immigration enforcement, the December trial is expected to draw widespread attention.
Ultimately, a jury will determine whether Dugan’s conduct crossed the line from judicial discretion into criminal behavior—a verdict that could have lasting consequences for her career and personal freedom.