Wisconsin judge convicted of obstructing immigrant arrest requests new trial

Judge Hannah Dugan was accused of blocking immigration agents from making an arrest inside the courthouse.

Jan. 30, 2026 at 8:47pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A Wisconsin judge convicted of obstructing federal agents is requesting a new trial. Judge Hannah Dugan was accused of blocking immigration agents from making an arrest inside the courthouse. Dugan filed a motion late Friday seeking a new trial and an acquittal of the count she was found guilty of last month.

Why it matters

This case highlights the ongoing tensions between local officials and federal immigration enforcement, as well as the potential consequences for judges who are perceived as interfering with federal operations. It also raises questions about the limits of judicial authority and the balance of power between different levels of government.

The details

Dugan was accused of obstructing federal agents from making an arrest inside the Milwaukee County courthouse. She has filed a motion seeking a new trial, arguing that her actions were "wholly official, good-faith acts" that did not violate any individual constitutional rights.

  • Dugan was convicted last month.
  • Dugan filed the motion for a new trial late on Friday.

The players

Hannah Dugan

A Wisconsin judge who was convicted of obstructing federal agents from making an arrest inside the courthouse.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Dugan files this motion as the first and only judge in United States history to stand trial on an indictment for wholly official, good-faith acts untainted by graft, corruption, or self-dealing and that violated no individual constitutional right that the Reconstruction Amendments protect.”

— Hannah Dugan, Judge (abc7ny.com)

What’s next

The judge in the case will decide whether to grant Dugan's request for a new trial.

The takeaway

This case highlights the ongoing tensions between local officials and federal immigration enforcement, as well as the potential consequences for judges who are perceived as interfering with federal operations. It also raises questions about the limits of judicial authority and the balance of power between different levels of government.