Federal Judge Lynn Adelman upheld Hannah Dugan's conviction on obstruction charges on June 16, 2026, but postponed her sentencing indefinitely while he considers her requests for a new trial and a judgment of acquittal, according to AP News.

Dugan is a state judge in Milwaukee County. A jury found her guilty of a felony for allegedly helping a Mexican national named Flores-Ruiz avoid arrest by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at her courthouse. Federal prosecutors said she told ICE agents they needed a judicial warrant—an order from a judge—to arrest someone there, when in fact ICE uses administrative warrants, which immigration officers can issue themselves. She then allegedly directed Flores-Ruiz through a back exit. She faced two charges in federal district court: obstruction of a federal proceeding and concealing a person to prevent their arrest.

The U.S. Justice Department announced the charges in April 2025 as part of what it called a broader effort to prosecute judges and court officials who interfere with federal immigration enforcement. The case drew national attention—sitting state judges rarely face criminal charges—and divided legal experts over whether Dugan crossed from using her judicial authority into criminal obstruction.

What Happens Next in Court

Dugan's legal team filed motions in January 2026 asking the judge to either overturn the verdict or grant her a new trial. Both are standard moves after a conviction. Judge Adelman's decision to hold off on sentencing until he rules on these motions is routine: if either motion succeeds, sentencing becomes unnecessary.

More significant is that Adelman refused to throw out the conviction on his own. To grant a judgment of acquittal after a jury verdict, a judge must find that no reasonable jury could have convicted based on the evidence. Adelman's refusal to do so suggests he found the evidence adequate.

The core disputed issue was whether Dugan's statement about warrants constituted criminal interference or was a legitimate—if mistaken—legal position. An administrative warrant (ICE Form I-200) is issued by immigration officials, not judges, and doesn't allow agents to enter private spaces without permission. Dugan's lawyers argued she was simply explaining how the law works. Prosecutors said that in a public courthouse, her conduct crossed into active obstruction. The jury agreed with the prosecution.

Why This Case Matters Beyond Wisconsin

When prosecutors charge a judge or court official for acts tied to their job, courts handle those cases with extra care. Separation of powers—the principle that judges, lawmakers, and the executive branch should not unduly control one another—looms over every decision.

For federal immigration officials, the prosecution sends a message: the government will pursue obstruction cases even against judges. For the judiciary as an institution, the practical question is narrower: did the specific facts at trial meet the legal definition of obstruction and concealment as the law describes them? Judge Adelman will answer that before any sentencing occurs.

If Adelman upholds the conviction and allows sentencing to proceed, the case enters unfamiliar terrain. What penalty is appropriate for a sitting state judge convicted of federal felonies? There are almost no precedents. That void explains why this case continues to draw attention outside legal circles and outside Wisconsin.