Full Breakdown
Former Milwaukee Judge’s Obstruction Conviction Paused as Federal Court Reexamines Legal Definition
6/5/2026, 12:39:00 AM
Core Hearing
On June 3 2026, U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman in Milwaukee heard arguments on whether to overturn former Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan’s felony obstruction conviction. The case pits Dugan’s attorney Steven Biskupic and acting U.S. attorney Richard Frohling against each other over whether the ICE arrest of undocumented immigrant Eduardo Flores-Ruiz counts as an “official proceeding” under 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2). A ruling for Dugan would vacate the verdict; otherwise sentencing will resume.
Legal Background
Dugan was convicted in December 2025 for obstructing the April 18 2025 ICE attempt to arrest Flores-Ruiz at the Milwaukee County courthouse. Prosecutors say the ICE action was part of a DHS removal proceeding, meeting the “pending proceeding” element. Dugan’s defense relies on United States v. Hernandez, a Fourth Circuit decision overturned in April 2026 that held an ICE arrest does not create a pending immigration proceeding. Although not binding in Wisconsin, the defense argues the reversal invalidates the conviction’s legal foundation.
Timeline
- April 18 2025 – ICE agents attempt arrest; Dugan redirects agents and escorts Flores-Ruiz out a side door.
- Dec 19 2025 – Jury convicts Dugan of felony obstruction, acquits her of a misdemeanor.
- Apr 2026 – Fourth Circuit overturns Hernandez decision.
- Jun 3 2026 – Adelman hears arguments; sentencing postponed.
Statistical Overview
The conviction carries a five-year maximum; federal guidelines favor probation for first-time, non-violent offenders, making a long prison term unlikely.
Official Positions & Conflict
The Justice Department argues the ICE arrest was embedded in an ongoing DHS removal proceeding, meeting the obstruction statute, and notes a proceeding’s duration can range from minutes to years. Prosecutors urge the court to uphold the ruling. Dugan’s team counters that the Hernandez reversal shows ICE actions are not “pending proceedings” and seeks a vacatur or new trial. The dispute centers on the definition of “pending proceeding,” with Judge Adelman probing both interpretations.
Implications
The case tests the reach of federal obstruction statutes in immigration contexts and could set precedent for prosecuting state judges who intervene in ICE operations, reflecting broader political tensions from the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.
Verbatim Quotes
- “Mere law enforcement activity is not a proceeding of the court,” — Steven Biskupic, attorney for Hannah Dugan
- “It could be a couple minutes, it could be a couple years,” — Richard Frohling, acting U.S. attorney
- “The lone Court of Appeals in the country to address this issue has said that’s not valid and the conviction is overturned,” — Steven Biskupic, attorney for Hannah Dugan
- “The court should stick with its ruling,” — Richard Frohling, acting U.S. attorney
- “We ask you do the same in this case.” — Steven Biskupic, attorney for Hannah Dugan
Future Outlook
Judge Adelman has not set a date for his written decision; an upheld conviction will lead to sentencing, while a vacated verdict will prompt an appeal to the Seventh Circuit and could shape future prosecutions of officials who impede ICE actions.
