Trump’s DOJ Criticizes Judge’s Claims of Privilege as ‘Absurd’ in Effort to Overturn ICE Obstruction Verdict

Former Wisconsin judge Hannah Dugan, who was convicted last year for obstructing ICE agents during a courthouse operation, is under fire from federal prosecutors for what they describe as “absurd” privilege claims in her quest to overturn her guilty verdict.

In a detailed 45-page response to Dugan’s appeal for a judgment of acquittal and a new trial, the U.S. Justice Department criticized her approach, stating, “Dugan’s motions…rely on arguments that she has waived or which the court already has rejected.” They emphasized that nothing in the cases Dugan referenced supports the notion that a Wisconsin judge has the authority to interfere with federal immigration law enforcement. The government filing, delivered on Friday, further condemned her assertions, adding, “Dugan’s claim that she had the right ‘to take multiple legal steps, regardless of motive’ is absurd.”

Dugan, aged 66, was charged last year with allegedly aiding an immigrant named Eduardo Flores-Ruiz in evading federal officers following his appearance in her Milwaukee County Circuit courtroom on a domestic abuse matter. In December, a federal jury convicted Dugan of one felony count of obstructing or impeding a proceeding before a U.S. department or agency. However, she was acquitted of a misdemeanor charge of concealing an individual to prevent his discovery and arrest.

Her legal team filed a motion on January 30 for a new trial, referencing recent court decisions, including a notable one from November 2025, that purportedly established a “common-law privilege” against civil arrests within courthouses. This privilege, according to the motion, specifically prohibits ICE from conducting arrests for deportations or removals inside courthouse premises.

Dugan’s lawyers filed their motion for a new trial on Jan. 30 with claims that recent court cases, including one in November 2025, established a “common-law privilege” that bars civil arrests from happening inside courthouses. “This privilege specifically precludes ICE courthouse arrests for deportations or removal,” the motion says.

Federal prosecutors, however, insist this isn’t the case.

“Arrests at the courthouse are a common practice and can be made in a public hallway with or even without a warrant based on probable cause,” the DOJ says in its response. “Because she knew ICE could operate in the hallways, Dugan prepared a sign for her courtroom door, stating that if any attorney, witness coordinator, or court official felt unsafe coming to court in person, they could request to appear by Zoom.”

Prosecutors point out how Dugan did not raise the privilege argument or legality of immigration arrests at courthouses before her trial, even though the “facts necessary to make such an argument” were alleged in her indictment.

“Dugan did not argue, in her voluminous pretrial motions to dismiss, that the indictment failed to state an offense because Flores-Ruiz was privileged from arrest in the courthouse,” the DOJ response says. “Thus, Dugan cannot now invoke a ‘longstanding’ privilege to argue that there was ‘no crime’ ‘as a matter of law’ unless she can show good cause for her earlier failure to object on this ground.”

The government alleges that Dugan is “wrong about the scope of the privilege,” claiming it does not apply to actions “by the sovereign that address uniquely sovereign interests,” as in the immigration context, according to the DOJ response. Even if Dugan had not waived her argument, her motion would fail on the merits, the response says.

“Dugan relies upon a privilege, sometimes described as ‘process immunity,’ that exempts non-residents from service of process while in a forum for the purpose of attending court proceedings,” prosecutors explain. “Dugan’s delineation of the privilege is incomplete. She treats all civil arrests alike and fails to account for the unique nature of civil immigration enforcement, which seeks the physical removal of the subject from the United States.”

Dugan’s lawyers allege in their motion requesting a new trial that jurors were improperly instructed during her trial. They say the jury asked whether Dugan needed to know who ICE agents were looking for that day in order to convict her.

For the misdemeanor concealing charge, the jurors said U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman — a Bill Clinton appointee — told them yes. But for the felony charge, jurors claimed he told them no.

“If it came back the same, we all would have found her not guilty, I am sure of it,” a juror told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel after Dugan’s conviction. “The jury followed Adelman’s instructions faithfully,” another juror said.

Dugan’s team argues that “the jury instructions mistakenly gave no guidance to the jury on how to consider Dugan’s legal right to act as she did,” per their motion. “The court’s improper response to the jury constructively amended the indictment,” the judge’s lawyers allege. “The error was not just in the court’s response to the jury, but in the evidence presented.”

Federal prosecutors claim Dugan’s position would have “added an element not found in the law and would lead to absurd results.”

“The court’s answer to the jury’s question as to count two was correct,” the DOJ response asserts. “In contrast, Dugan’s proposed answer would have required the court to misstate the law by adding an element. It would have been the equivalent of an instruction along the lines of ‘to know of the pending proceeding, the defendant must have known that the specific name of the person subject to that proceeding was Eduardo Flores-Ruiz.’”

Prosecutors say that under Dugan’s view, a defendant could intentionally obstruct the arrest of an individual but escape liability because they knew the person only by an alias or because they avoided learning the person’s name at all. They compare it to a “driver of a car” seeing an agent on the street trying to arrest an individual and asking what is happening.

“In response, the agent says he is a federal agent and is executing a warrant for the subject to appear for pending removal proceedings,” the DOJ explains. “Upon hearing this, the driver opens his door, yells to the wanted individual to get in, and successfully drives the subject away. Under Dugan’s view, the driver could not have obstructed a pending proceeding because she did not at the time of her conduct know the name of the person she helped avoid arrest.”

Prosecutors believe a result such as this “would make no sense and require more than the statute provides.”

Federal prosecutors alleged during her trial that Dugan impeded ICE agents during the courthouse immigration bust in Milwaukee by helping Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican national who was facing misdemeanor battery charges, leave through a jury door after a hearing in his criminal case.

Dugan was accused of “falsely” telling ICE agents they needed to obtain a judicial warrant to take Flores-Ruiz into custody. The incident occurred on April 18, 2025, and Dugan was charged in a criminal complaint less than a week later and formally indicted in late May.

According to prosecutors, Milwaukee County was in the process of formulating a policy concerning ICE arrests in the courthouse at the time of the arrest attempt.

“In discussions about this, which included Dugan, there had been no mention of a privilege against ICE arrest,” the DOJ says. “Indeed, the operating assumption of the participants in this discussion was that ICE arrests based on administrative warrants were lawful in public areas of the courthouse.”

Obstruction carries a potential maximum sentence of five years in federal prison, according to federal law. The former Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge stepped down from the bench last month and officially resigned to keep “pursuing this fight” against the legal system and her guilty verdict “for our independent judiciary,” she said.

Dugan’s sentencing date has not yet been set.