Prosecutors Suggest ‘Serious Sentence,’ Prison for Hannah Dugan

Milwaukee Federal Courthouse. Photo by Mariiana Tzotcheva

Federal prosecutors are suggesting Hannah Dugan be sentenced to more than a year behind bars for obstructing a federal immigration operation in April last year.

“This was a serious offense, and it warrants a correspondingly serious sentence,” federal prosecutors wrote in a sentencing memo filed in federal court on July 1.

Prosecutors said federal sentencing guidelines suggest a sentence of 15 to 21 months would be appropriate in Dugan’s case. They also pointed to historical sentencing data showing that defendants with similar criminal histories and violations were sentenced to an average of 16 months.

Dugan’s attorneys are suggesting a sentence of time served. They say in a memo that sentencing “need not do worse” to Dugan than the public humiliation and loss of her career she has already suffered. They argue the guidelines suggest a sentence of zero to six months when evaluating the actual conduct, not just the charge she was convicted of.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman has presided over the case. He has set a sentencing hearing for July 8.

Dugan was charged with one count of federal misdemeanor obstruction of a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)operation and another count of concealing an individual from arrest. On the count of concealment, she was not convicted.

The charges stemmed from an April 2025 incident at the county courthouse, when agents with ICE and other federal law enforcement agencies went there to arrest an undocumented immigrant, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, appearing in Dugan’s courtroom. Dugan spoke to the agents and later let Flores-Ruiz exit her courtroom through a side door. She was convicted on one count of obstruction in December.

Dugan tried twice to have her conviction overturned. Her legal team pushed for a new trial, in part based on the split verdict. Later, they argued new case law out of Virginia had materially altered the government’s case against her. In both instances, Adelman upheld her conviction.

Federal prosecutors said pointed to Dugan’s privileged childhood, her extensive education and history of civic leadership as evidence “that she had no reason to involve herself in criminally obstructive conduct.” As a judge, Dugan “was entrusted with authority and responsibility that few citizens possess,” prosecutors said. “As a lawyer and judge, she had a far better understanding than the average defendant of the type of conduct that constitutes obstruction. As an elected official, she also agreed to be held to a higher standard of ethical conduct.”

Prosecutors argued Adelman needs to promote respect for the law in sentencing Dugan. They said Dugan’s refusal to admit wrongdoing shows she did not have “a momentary lapse in judgment followed by reflection or remorse” and that she has continued to argue her actions were legal.

“To be clear, the government does not seek punishment for the defendant’s exercise of her Constitutional right to trial,” prosecutors wrote. “Rather, the Court simply should consider the defendant’s continued minimization of her conduct and persistent refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing when evaluating the need to promote respect for the law.”

Dugan’s attorneys, asking for a sentence of time served, say she has already suffered the loss of her judicial career; that threats against her have forced her out of her home and she has withdrawn from community and religious events, despite being deeply religious; and that she faces security concerns that will persist regardless of the court’s sentence.

“She, of course, has no prior criminal record; the offense was isolated and unique; and there is no possibility of her repeating it,” Dugan’s attorneys said. “She was handcuffed and shackled during her arrest, photographed publicly by plan, and intentionally shamed from coast to coast by the leadership of the U.S. Department of Justice and FBI. There is no need for further deterrence, either specifically or generally.”

Local community members and current and former judges wrote letters to the court praising Dugan’s selflessness and dedication to public service. Judge Joseph Wall wrote that Dugan has shown “a career-long commitment to the poor and powerless.”

Her attorneys also argue that Dugan’s conduct was not for personal gain, regardless of whether she was correct in her actions.

“Judge Dugan’s attempt to exercise her state law authority was not malicious or self-serving,” her attorneys wrote. “Her effort to protect the state judiciary’s authority and independence was not an attempt at personal or private gain.”

Her attorneys also note the man Dugan sent out of her courtroom was given a sentence of time served for illegally entering the U.S. They also point to the only other similar case in U.S. history, which occurred in 2019 when a Massachusetts judge faced an obstruction charge after letting an immigrant targeted by ICE out of a side door of her courtroom. That judge, Massachusetts District Court Judge Shelley Joseph, had her charges dismissed under a deferred prosecution agreement in 2022.

Legislation Link - Urban Milwaukee members see direct links to legislation mentioned in this article. Join today