A jury in Milwaukee this week proved that it takes more than a robe to act like a judge. On Thursday, Judge Hannah Dugan was found guilty of the most serious count brought against her in a case that captivated many in the nation. Dugan famously told a fellow judge to wear her robe in the hallway to confront federal officers seeking to arrest a suspect.
A jury found Dugan guilty of obstruction in helping an illegal migrant evade arrest by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. She was acquitted of the misdemeanor charge of concealing Flores Ruiz.
Judge Dugan was lionized by the left, including attorneys and politicians, for her effort to facilitate the escape of Eduardo Flores-Ruiz. She had a prominent legal team, including former Solicitor General Paul Clement and former U.S. Attorney Steve Biskupic. Retired Supreme Court Justice Janine Geske agreed to be the trustee over a large defense fund.
This week, we discussed how Dugan’s colleague Judge Kristela Cervera delivered a heavy blow to her defense in testifying how Dugan pulled her into the dispute with the agents and how she acted improperly in the matter.
Cervera said that Dugan specifically told her to keep her robe on and that she was reluctant to do so: “I didn’t want to walk in the hallway with my robe on.” Dugan, however, allegedly wanted the agents to see them in their robes as a sign of authority.
She said that the agent remained respectful but that Dugan was getting upset in the confrontation: “Her irritation seemed to progress to anger. I thought she could have been a little more diplomatic.”
That coincides with the testimony of FBI Special Agent Jeffrey Baker, who stated, “I would say angry is the best way to describe it.”
Likewise, U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer Joseph Zuraw stated that Dugan ordered him to “get out” of the public hallway and told him to go to the chief judge’s office. She then allegedly helped the suspect escape through a side door.
Cervera also testified that she was “shocked” by Dugan’s later conduct and that “judges should not be helping defendants evade arrest.” She added, “I was mortified. I thought that someone may think that I was part of some of what happened.”
Cervera said she was shocked by attorneys praising her for helping Flores-Ruiz escape. She described attorneys pumping their fists and telling her, “You go, Judge,” and saying, “Judge, you’re ‘goated’ now.”
She said that she avoided Dugan but ran into her in an elevator. She noted that Cervera told her she was “in the dog house” with the Chief Judge for trying to help Flores-Ruiz.
Cervera delivered a particularly devastating line before the jury in stating categorically that “Judges shouldn’t help criminal defendants evade arrest.”
The testimony supported the allegation that Dugan knowingly sought to help Flores-Ruiz and that her actions were outside her role as a judge in the courthouse.
We discussed how Dugan could not have had a better jury pool in the liberal district or a more fortunate choice as presiding judge. Indeed, I previously wrote that it would take jury nullification to acquit Dugan on the strong case against her. If that was the strategy, it collapsed under the testimony of Cervera and others.
Her fate may have been set by her decision not to testify. For jurors, the incongruity was likely unavoidable. If she was acting in furtherance of her judicial duties, why wouldn’t she explain her actions directly to the jurors? She clearly has a right to remain silent and prosecutors cannot use that silence against her. However, jurors likely found the silence deafening.
It may also have reflected how damning the evidence was against her. If she took the stand, she would have been forced to address glaring inconsistencies in her position as well as public comments that she made before trial.
I previously wrote about my surprise that she posted a videotape statement on her actions and how she was the champion for the rule of law. The statement included assertions that she would send defendants through the door whenever she felt it was warranted.
The jury did not agree with Democratic politicians and pundits who heralded her actions. MSNOW regular Norm Eisen and the executive chair of Democracy Defenders Fund declared, “this case is a five-alarm fire for our democracy and one of its foundations: judicial independence. Prosecuting a judge for how she runs her courtroom is outrageous and unlawful.”
Abbe Lowell, who represented Hunter Biden, declared
“Judge Dugan’s arrest and prosecution are a blatant attack on judicial independence. By targeting a state judge for her courtroom management, this Administration is signaling its alarming willingness to coerce state courts into executing its federal immigration agenda – an unacceptable assault on federalism and a grave threat to the public’s trust in our court system. Protecting judges from such intimidation is paramount to upholding the rule of law for every American.”
Monica Isham, a circuit judge in Sawyer County, not only defended Judge Hannah Dugan in an email to other state judges but added that she “has no intention of allowing anyone to be taken out of my courtroom by [Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents] and sent to a concentration camp.”
Dozens of judges signed statements in support of Dugan, including Judge Michael Luttig, U.S. Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Ret.).
I strongly disagreed with those views, excusing the clearly injudicious and unlawful conduct of Judge Dugan.
Ultimately, Judge Lynn Adelman, a liberal long-standing jurist on the court, rejected half-baked arguments of judicial immunity in such actions. Twelve jurors in Milwaukee then rejected all of the atmospherics and bluster in ruling according to the law. They did what Dugan did not: they followed the rule of law rather than any personal or political impulse.
Dugan’s conviction of a felony only reinforces the outrage over the Biden Administration dropping charges against Massachusetts Judge Shelley Joseph who, in November, was given simply a mere reprimand by the bar in a similar case.
Dugan could now face up to five years in prison, though such a sentence is highly unlikely in her case.
Excellent news! I hope the conviction sticks and is not overturned. Radical judges need to be reined in.
Will she appeal?
She has no appeal…
I bet if she looked like Bondi she would have walked.
For the People (My financial people)
Process error? Highly unlikely any judge will nullify a jury vote of guilty, maybe not. Maybe they will but this is obvious.
Due to union and liberal control of the court employees, you do not see the cross section of the normal population. Weaponized anti-discrimination rules promote a concentration of people that are rarely seen on the average street. You see more wheelchairs, more cross dressers, more mid transitioning, more piercings more physical disabilities, more blind, more deaf…etc. All this to say is their liberalism is empowered and they relish the chance to strut it.
Good thing she was not convicted of trespassing in the US Capitol or she would be looking at years behind bars. This little misunderstanding will get her a suspended sentence.
I renew my motion to eliminate Judicial and Prosecutorial immunity to rein in a clearly Biased and Unlawful Judicial Branch!!!
“I renew my motion to eliminate Judicial and Prosecutorial immunity to rein in a clearly Biased and Unlawful Judicial Branch”
I favor entirely rescinding the doctrine of presumptive immunity (along with the consequential limited liability) for *any and all* public officials. I have always been told that the doctrine is required to ensure that qualified people are willing to serve in those positions, who would otherwise pass on such a “civic duty”. Well, is that was ever true (I have serious doubts about that) that era ended long ago. Today we have a preponderance of politicians and other “civil servants” who seek those positions solely because they will be provided with a lucrative career that empowers their whims, vastly inflates their assets, and is unencumbered by any accountability whatsoever. We would currently be far better served if a career in government was far less attractive to the rent seekers among us.
I, like many others here, wait to see if the conviction stands and is not overruled. Also will she receive a sentence. To those who have received much, much is expected. The judge was a public servant and betrayed that office and should suffer the consequences. I do hope she receives some jail time hopefully to learn some humility, maybe several years of legal retraining about court decorum. I would suggest she also perform some public service like a soup kitchen or working in a safe house for battered women. I would hope any public service does not include giving free legal advice.
Think about the guy that Judge Duggan ruined her life over. If I am remembering correctly he was charged with some sort of abuse of roommates or maybe even some sort of domestic abuse and the VICTIMS were actually in the courthouse awaiting his trial only to witness him escape without knowing where he would turn up again. So this paragon of justice throws away her job, her law license and her reputation (although in today’s bizarro world it is probably enhanced) all for an illegal miscreant who was in court for violence.
How would all of these Abbe Lowell types act if a judge helped a woman escape while in court for praying at an abortion clinic?
Remember Abe Lincoln, who opened a window and advised his murderess client that the water was good in Kentucky. That was before he became a public official though.
Just imagine, “Crazy Abe” went on to deny not prohibited and fully constitutional secession—not rebellion—leading to the entirety of his nearly half-decade-long and wholly unconstitutional “Reign of Terror.” The signs were there early, as you so aptly point out.
Incidentally, the preceding position is presented in support of the law in a society of laws, not reprehensible slavery.
The defendant might have been a no show causing more trouble but I am sympathetic to ICE because it’s safer to show up in the building to arrest.
Disbarment is not automatic or guaranteed. The most likely result will be a short term suspension. Removal from the Bench is up to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, who suspended the judge pending trial on these charges
Unless her felony conviction is overturned, she will be disbarred automatically.
AI says:
Disbarment and Felony Convictions in Wisconsin
General Overview
In Wisconsin, a felony conviction does not automatically lead to disbarment for attorneys. While many states impose strict penalties, including immediate suspension upon conviction, Wisconsin allows some attorneys to retain their licenses even after serious criminal convictions.
Active Licenses Despite Convictions
Current Statistics: There are approximately 135 attorneys in Wisconsin who hold active licenses despite having felony or misdemeanor convictions, including serious offenses like battery and fraud.
License Restoration: Some attorneys have successfully regained their licenses after serving suspensions. For example, an attorney convicted of mail fraud was suspended but later reinstated after three years.
Factors Influencing Disciplinary Actions
The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) in Wisconsin considers several factors when determining disciplinary actions against attorneys:
Nature of the Crime: Crimes that reflect adversely on an attorney’s honesty or trustworthiness can lead to disciplinary measures.
Conduct During Representation: An attorney’s behavior while representing clients can also impact their standing. Violations of professional conduct rules may result in reprimands or other disciplinary actions.
Restoration of Rights
Pardons: Attorneys may seek a pardon to restore their rights, including the ability to practice law. The process requires completion of their sentence and no intervening convictions.
Impact on Civil Rights: A felony conviction can lead to the loss of various civil rights, including the right to vote and hold public office, but these rights can be restored under certain conditions.
Understanding these aspects is crucial for attorneys facing felony charges in Wisconsin, as the implications for their legal careers can vary significantly based on individual circumstances.
Whig98
I would say that the consideration for disbarment would go well beyond her just being an attorney. She was a judge, an attorney alone argues law, a judge referees the arguments and administers the outcome according to the law. She was directly responsible for officiating court administering the juries verdict and at times deciding the verdict as well as executing punitive sentencing. Far more powerful than just an attorney, therefore she should be dealt with much more severely for knowingly violating the law. Disbarment a year in the hooscow with 4 years probation and financial restitution for all costs seems fair.
I think that there are two distinct issues here. First is her license – that is up to the state Bar ethics people. Second is her judicial standing. That is up to the state Supreme Court. If she loses her license, which I doubt, she is off the bench. If the Bar gives her a slap on the wrist, she can retain her license, but the Court can still remove her from the bench. Not sure whether she could run for judicial office in the future.
“. . . keep her robe on . . .” (JT)
The Left sure does love to impress and intimidate others with their baubles: A robe (Dugan); a title (“I am science,” Fauci); a degree (“Harvard grad, here”); a pedigree (“I’m a Kennedy”); a social standing (“I demand entrance. I’m a congressman.”).
Why flaunt your baubles? Because you have zero self-esteem.
Right On Sam!
They point to their made up credentials as if it holds some magic key to provide legitimacy.
BUT they SOLD their legitimacy by being shamelessly caught in so many lies and scandals.
“I’m an AG. I’m an AG. I’m an A-“: https://www.golocalprov.com/news/video-ri-assistant-attorney-general-screams-i-am-an-ag-and-berates-police
ASSISTANT TO the regional Attorney General.
How to destroy your life in 5 minutes by Poor Judgement Dugan. Activists are for clown shows like the Spew, not the Bench.
The argument that judges must be independent of the Law is appalling! Everything about judicial action must be in accordance with the Law, not subject to the whims or political views of judges. This judicial activism must stop before the last vestiges of public respect for the Law dies. Respect dies first, then obedience. Once that occurs, each individual becomes the arbiter of his own personal law.
Judge Dugan: Laws for thee but not for me — oops! It didn’t work this time:)
These activist in Judge’s robes are decimating the rule of law and disgracing the bench. What is the difference between the activist Judges sitting on the bench, who manipulate the laws to suit themselves, and use their robes inside their Court rooms to obstruct ICE Agents from enforcing the Immigration Laws, and the activist Judges who use their robes outside the Court rooms to obstruct the enforcement of Immigration Laws? They all paint the Agents as “kidnappers” who, by the way, are trying to enforce the laws enacted by Congress. They all demonize the Agents, and make the criminal illegals some sort innocent victim, regardless of crimes and types of crimes committed after they broke into our country!
Abbe Lowell bleats: “Judge Dugan’s arrest and prosecution are a blatant attack on judicial independence.” Seriously?
Lowell thus advocates for the Imperial Judiciary championed by SCOTUS intellectual luminary Ketanji Brown (“I-cannot/will-not-define-what-a-woman-is”) Jackson. Judicial independence is one thing; tyrannical edicts which eradicate criminal laws are quite another. And the fact that Paul Clement was part of her defense team speaks volumes about the impact of money on actions.
Hiring Abbe Lowell lately is a one-way ticket to the hoosgow.
Famous for losing now.
I am shocked she got convicted. We need to see if the hand picked judge lets her off easy, no prison time and if her judgeship and law license are revoked permanently as a convicted felon. This trial should have never taken place in Milwaukee or Madison, but one of the other two Federal courts in Wisconsin, Superior or Wausau.
The judge, Lynn Adelman, 85.
https://jonathanturley.org/2025/05/21/a-judge-of-her-peers-judge-dugan-assigned-a-judge-previously-rebuked-for-political-bias/
Now, in a case that has divided the nation, the public will have to rely on a judge who discarded his own obligations as a judge to lash out at conservatives, Trump, and conservative jurists.
Adelman was sharply rebuked for ignoring controlling Supreme Court precedent to rule in favor of a Democratic challenge over voting identification rules just before a critical election. Adelman blocked the law before the election despite a Supreme Court case issued years earlier in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), rejecting a similar challenge.
Adelman, however, was apparently undeterred. In 2020, he wrote a law review article for Harvard Law & Policy Review, titled “The Roberts Court’s Assault on Democracy.”
Until her sentence comes out we cannot sure justice has been served. She deserves and should get prison time, maybe not the whole 5 years, but a minimum of two. Her breaking the law is must more egregious as she swore an oath to uphold the law. Her punishment must not only be about her, but as a warning to other people who have sworn to uphold the law and then are thinking about breaking the law.
I have written many times that the liberalism of today’s progressive Democrat party is not about individual freedom. but freedom from the constraints of law, principles, institutional norms, decent behavior, and tolerance. It is the freedom that is guided by a “by any means necessary’ mentality. It is the freedom that promotes censorship and violence to advance political goals. Today’s liberalism is a threat to our democratic republic, the rule of law, civility, security and societal cohesion.
It is also why leftist Democrats should never be allowed within 52 factorial cubed parsecs of governmental power, including judicial power.
Tubwater,
Great comment and I agree. The only thing I would question is it really liberalism or illiberalism?
“No matter how big, rich or powerful you think you are, no one is above the law.”
Prof. Turley: big fan here. Thanks for yet another informative/concise essay… Because I know you are someone passionate about the details, there is a one-letter typo in the last sentence that changes the meaning. ‘Not’ instead of now.
Also, I think this sentence is muddled: “She noted that Cervera told her she was “in the dog house” with the Chief Judge for trying to help Flores-Ruiz.”
I think the pronoun “She” beginning the sentence refers to Judge Cervera. So the name Cervera is wrong. It should be Dugan.
“Judge Dugan’s arrest and prosecution are a blatant attack on judicial independence. ” — In other words, Abbe Lowell believes that this judge is above the law. I wonder if he would have given the same grace to a conservative judge. That said, the Constitution is apolitical and the law applies to everyone, including judges.
An appropriate sentence would be repay the cost of the trial to the state and some period of time under house arrest…..maybe 6 months. No jail time
Pickup trash on Broad Street 4 hours a day for 2 years. High vis vest mandatory.
And yeah, bye bye 20k per month judicial pension. FAFO.
Give her the maximum 5 years to send a message to all these leftist judges who think illegals cannot be deported. It’s already a monumental task without massive obstruction from the left.
Repay the trial cost to taxpayers and some period of time under house arrest…maybe 6 months. Jail time would serve no purpose.
BS she should get more punishment than the average person because as a judge she has taken an oath to up hold the law, making her violation of the law much more egregious than the average persons. If not you just enable other judges, DA’s, politicians, defense lawyers and police to break the law with impunity. While I don’t expect the maximum sentence as few ever get that unless murdering someone, prison time is a very important part of her punishment.
Correct observation…surprising that hasn’t been discussed, anon.
To those given much, much is expected.
“Jail time would serve no purpose.”
Beg to differ. 5 years in the slammer would send a powerful message to the lawless Left.
Would also take her off the streets and give her time to reflect.
It would also let her lose 50 pounds on prison fare and come out looking less like a whale.
Wiseoldlawyer,
I wounder how her fellow inmates would feel about having a judge in the populace?
About like Derek Chauvin who was stabbed 27 times in general population.
Yes, jail can be rehabilitative. She’ll come out older, wiser, and less like a lawyer.
Voltaire – as libertine as they come – wrote in Candide that “it is good to hang an admiral from time to time to encourage the others.”
She flagrantly abused her power and authority to try to aid a man escape apprehension. If she wants to behave like a scofflaw rather than as a judge, then she deserves to be treated like a scofflaw.
Let her sit in a cage for a few months. It may encourage other judicial supremacists to stop acting on their personal biases and do the job demanded of them as judges.
“Let her sit in a cage for a few months. It may encourage other judicial supremacists to stop acting on their personal biases and do the job demanded of them as judges.”
Or encourage them to quit, which might be a better result…
Loss of her law license should also be mandatory as a convicted felon!
Well how about that…the little judge throwing her weight around hit a brick wall and fell flat…she should go to prison…she is no different than any other American that has broken the law…
I am shocked she was convicted. There is hope. Let’s see if she is disbarred. I won’t hold my breath for that.