A former Wisconsin judge convicted of obstructing federal immigration enforcement received a $5,000 fine instead of prison time, despite prosecutors seeking up to 21 months behind bars for interfering with ICE agents attempting to arrest an illegal immigrant in her courtroom.

The Conviction and Sentencing

Hannah Dugan, 67, was found guilty in December of felony obstruction after she helped a Mexican defendant exit her courtroom in April 2025 to evade waiting Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman issued the fine Wednesday, saying Dugan was “an otherwise good person” who “made a bad decision in the moment” due to disagreement with immigration policies. The sentencing guidelines recommended 15 to 21 months in prison.

Dugan had served as a Milwaukee County circuit judge for nine years before resigning in January under threat of impeachment from Republican state lawmakers. During sentencing, she told the court her actions were intended to maintain “decorum and safety” rather than obstruct law enforcement. She emphasized being neither “a scofflaw nor a hero” but simply “a public servant” trying to perform her duties.

Political Fallout and Consequences

The case became highly politicized, with Republican lawmakers calling Dugan an activist judge for prioritizing personal beliefs over federal law enforcement. U.S. Representative Tom Tiffany, a Trump supporter running for Wisconsin governor, publicly urged authorities to “lock her up” following her conviction. Dugan’s defense attorneys argued the Trump administration sought to “crush” her as a warning to other judges considering interference with ICE courthouse operations.

Prosecutors maintained that judges cannot selectively disregard laws they personally oppose. Executive Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Frohling stated Dugan “violated her oath” and “crossed a line” judges cannot cross, despite their discretion. He noted the average sentence for obstruction cases is 16 months but stopped short of recommending specific prison time.

Impact and Future Action

Judge Adelman cited collateral consequences Dugan already faced as justification for leniency, including loss of her judicial position, a permanent felony record, and ongoing threats forcing her family to relocate and withdraw from community life. He characterized the incident as “a few minutes of conduct” from someone dedicated to public service, representing “a marked deviation from an otherwise law-abiding life.” Two Marquette University law professors, including a former state Supreme Court justice and a Jesuit priest, testified on her behalf, describing her as a defender of vulnerable populations. Dugan’s attorney confirmed plans to appeal the conviction despite the lenient sentence.