Former Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan has taken decisive legal action to challenge the felony conviction handed down by a federal jury last December. Her defense team has filed a comprehensive motion seeking to nullify the guilty verdict, raising fundamental questions about judicial immunity and the authority of immigration enforcement within courthouse premises.
The 46-page legal document, submitted on January 30 in Milwaukee's federal court, represents a bold attempt to reverse what Dugan's attorneys describe as an unprecedented outcome. They assert that she stands as the first American judge in history to face trial and conviction on felony charges for actions performed entirely within the scope of judicial duties. This distinction, they argue, makes the conviction legally untenable and dangerous for judicial independence nationwide.
The jury's decision on December 18 presented a complex and seemingly contradictory picture. While convicting Dugan of obstructing federal immigration agents—a serious felony offense that carries significant penalties—they simultaneously acquitted her of the misdemeanor charge of concealing an undocumented individual whom agents had sought to apprehend. This split verdict has become central to the defense's argument that the decision contained internal contradictions that undermine its validity.
At the heart of the legal challenge are two primary arguments that strike at the foundation of the prosecution's case. First, Dugan's counsel contends that federal immigration agents lacked legal authority to execute an administrative arrest warrant inside a courthouse. They cite multiple precedents, including federal court decisions and a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling, which they argue establish clear boundaries on where such enforcement actions may occur. The defense maintains that courthouses, as sanctuaries of justice where individuals must appear without fear, are protected spaces where administrative warrants hold no power.
Second, the defense maintains that judges possess absolute immunity from prosecution for acts performed in their official capacity. This principle, deeply rooted in American jurisprudence, they argue, should shield Dugan from criminal liability for decisions made from the bench in the course of administering justice. U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman had previously rejected this immunity argument when the defense sought to dismiss the case entirely before trial, but the team is now reviving it with additional legal support in their post-verdict motion.
The defense has also challenged Judge Adelman's handling of a critical jury question during deliberations, arguing this procedural misstep tainted the verdict. They contend that his response to the jury's inquiry was legally incorrect and directly contributed to the contradictory nature of the verdicts. This alleged error in jury instruction forms another pillar of their request for judicial intervention, suggesting that the jury may have been confused about the applicable law.
If Judge Adelman declines to vacate the conviction entirely, Dugan's team has requested an alternative remedy: a complete new trial before a different jury. The prosecution must respond to these arguments by February 20, after which the defense will have until March 6 to file any final supplementary materials. Judge Adelman's ruling is expected to follow this deadline, though the complexity of the issues may require additional time.
The case has thrust Dugan into a national spotlight as a central figure in the ongoing tension between the judiciary and federal immigration enforcement under the Trump administration. Her situation exemplifies the broader conflicts arising from the administration's aggressive immigration policies and their intersection with state and local judicial systems. Courthouses across the country have grappled with similar tensions, as immigration agents have increasingly sought to apprehend individuals appearing for routine legal matters.
In a move that may have been strategic, Dugan, 66, resigned from her judicial position on January 3. This decision came as momentum built in the Wisconsin Legislature toward her potential impeachment and removal from office. While she expressed that the public would benefit from her continued service during the legal proceedings, the political pressure proved insurmountable. Her resignation preempted what would have been a historic impeachment process.
Governor Tony Evers has since appointed Owen Piotrowski, a Milwaukee County assistant district attorney, to fill the judicial vacancy left by Dugan's departure. Piotrowski assumed his new role on February 1, bringing fresh leadership to the position and restoring the court to full capacity after months of uncertainty.
Throughout the criminal proceedings, Dugan remained suspended from active judicial duties but continued receiving her annual salary of approximately $175,000. Community supporters initiated a fundraising campaign to help cover the substantial costs associated with her high-profile defense team, led by prominent attorney Steve Biskupic. The case has generated significant public interest and divided opinions about the proper role of judges in immigration enforcement actions.
The potential consequences Dugan faces include a maximum sentence of five years in federal prison. However, legal experts suggest that actual incarceration is highly unlikely. Federal sentencing guidelines typically recommend probation for first-time offenders convicted of nonviolent crimes, particularly those with Dugan's professional background and lack of criminal history. Her decades of public service and previously unblemished record would weigh heavily in any sentencing decision.
Notably, Judge Adelman has not yet scheduled a sentencing hearing or ordered a pre-sentence investigation—procedures that are standard practice in Milwaukee's federal court following a guilty verdict. This unusual omission has fueled speculation about the case's uncertain trajectory and the possibility that the conviction itself may not survive the appellate process. Some court observers interpret this delay as a sign that the judge recognizes the vulnerability of the verdict.
Biskupic indicated immediately after the verdict that the defense would pursue an extensive appeal, and the January 30 filing delivers on that promise with comprehensive legal arguments. The motion meticulously details what the defense perceives as multiple errors throughout the proceedings, from pre-trial rulings to jury instructions.
Regardless of Judge Adelman's upcoming decision, the case appears destined for further appellate review. Legal observers anticipate that the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals will ultimately examine the issues raised, and the possibility of review by the U.S. Supreme Court cannot be ruled out given the case's novel legal questions about judicial authority and federal enforcement powers. The high court's interest would likely depend on whether the appellate decision creates a circuit split or raises constitutional questions of broad significance.
The outcome will likely establish important precedents regarding the extent of judicial immunity, the limits of immigration enforcement in sensitive locations like courthouses, and the proper balance between federal authority and state judicial independence. As the legal process unfolds, Dugan's case continues to capture national attention as a bellwether for the evolving relationship between America's courts and its immigration enforcement apparatus. The final resolution may take years but will undoubtedly shape how similar cases are handled across the federal judiciary.