Prosecutors Ask Court to Disregard Dugan’s New Push for Acquittal

The federal government is asking U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman to ignore a recent court ruling and move forward with sentencing for Hannah Dugan, a former Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge convicted of a federal misdemeanor earlier this year.

Dugan was charged with two federal crimes in 2025 in the wake of an incident involving a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operation at the Milwaukee County Courthouse, but she was only convicted of one crime at the end of her trial in December.

Her legal team has sought to have the conviction overturned before sentencing, which is scheduled for June 3. Now her attorneys are locked in an argument with federal prosecutors over the meaning and interpretation of a single word, “proceeding,” in the federal statute under which Dugan was convicted.

In April, Dugan’s lawyers filed a motion arguing a recent decision by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had changed the precedent governing the legal interpretation of the federal statute under which Dugan was convicted.

The recent decision in United States v. Hernandez held that immigration proceedings do not include ICE deportation operations. Dugan was convicted of obstructing a “proceeding” after sending an immigrant appearing in her courtroom out a side door after learning federal immigration agents were in the hallway in April last year.

Federal prosecutors responded Wednesday with a motion arguing the Hernandez decision “is neither binding nor persuasive, and it does nothing to call into question this Court’s reasoning.”

While the issues in the Hernandez case are relevant, the prosecutors argue they don’t represent a significant change in the law. Dugan’s motion for reconsideration of the conviction carries a heavy burden that has not been met, and there is a “substantial body of law” supporting the reading of the statute under which Dugan was convicted.

In the “universe” of cases prosecuted under the federal statute in question, the Hernandez decision is an “outlier,” according to prosecutors, who argue Adelman’s court was correct when it fashioned jury instructions and found the lower court’s ruling in the Hernandez case “persuasive.” They also point to a ruling in a different appellate court — the 7th Circuit, which includes Wisconsin — finding that ICE enforcement is considered part of a “proceeding.”

“The Court properly denied Dugan’s motions for a judgment of acquittal and new trial, and her motion for reconsideration does nothing to undermine the Court’s sound reasoning,” prosecutors argue.