Introduction
An ABC News article reporting on Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan’s indictment raised serious questions among DBUNK users. Was Judge Dugan interfering in a lawful arrest, or was she defending judicial protocol in her courtroom from federal agents? Allegations that she helped an undocumented immigrant evade arrest sparked online debate. This fact-check dissects the core claims using federal filings, legal precedent, and surveillance footage to separate fact from distortion.
Historical Context
Federal and local law enforcement have long debated the limits of immigration enforcement inside courthouses. In 2018, ICE expanded its remit to include arrests in public court areas, prompting pushback from city officials and judges who saw this as disruptive to the judicial process. Within this tension, incidents involving accused immigrants in state courts have evolved into legal and political flashpoints. The case of Judge Dugan echoes these broader conflicts over jurisdiction, federal authority, and courtroom autonomy.
Fact-Check of Specific Claims
Claim #1: Judge Dugan physically aided an undocumented immigrant in evading ICE agents
Prosecutors claim that Judge Dugan directed the defendant, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, and his attorney through secure hallways, ultimately facilitating their exit to evade ICE agents. However, surveillance video obtained by ABC News contradicts key parts of this narrative. The video, sourced through a public records request, shows Flores-Ruiz did not take the stairs as described in the indictment but instead used the elevator—while being closely followed by federal agents. This directly undermines the assertion that she enabled a “covert” escape. While the judge may have provided directions, the video weakens the claim of intentional obstruction. Major news outlets and public records confirm this discrepancy. Source: ABC News Public Records & Security Footage Analysis.
Claim #2: Judicial immunity protects Judge Dugan from prosecution for these actions
Dugan’s attorneys argue that she is immune from prosecution under the doctrine of judicial immunity, particularly citing Supreme Court precedent on presidential immunity. However, U.S. law generally does not grant immunity to judges for nonjudicial acts, especially those outside formal case rulings. As noted by legal scholars and affirmed in U.S. Supreme Court rulings like Forrester v. White (1988), judicial immunity protects decision-making, not actions that are administrative or operational, such as physically intervening in unrelated court matters. Therefore, the legal consensus is that judicial immunity is unlikely to shield Dugan from prosecution. Source: Cornell Law Legal Information Institute – Judicial Immunity.
Claim #3: Federal agents disrupted an active state court proceeding in violation of judicial decorum
Dugan’s defense argues that ICE agents improperly disrupted her courtroom on April 18 while trying to detain Flores-Ruiz. But according to the government’s legal filings, as well as surveillance video, it was Dugan who paused her docket, left her courtroom, and entered a colleague’s courtroom before initiating contact with agents. No evidence has been published showing agents forcibly interrupted proceedings inside the judge’s courtroom. Furthermore, government documents assert that the ICE arrest attempt occurred in a public hallway. Without sound in the videos, the question of tone or decorum remains unclear—but visible actions support the government’s sequence of events. Source: U.S. Attorney’s Office Court Filing and ABC-acquired Court Surveillance Video.
Claim #4: The state Supreme Court suspended Judge Dugan purely due to public interest
This is accurate. The Wisconsin Supreme Court issued an order temporarily suspending Judge Dugan, stating it served the “public interest.” Judicial conduct codes permit this type of suspension when pending criminal charges could damage public confidence in the judiciary. This is a procedural act, not a presumption of guilt. The administrative suspension adheres to standard practice in similar high-profile judicial cases. Source: Wisconsin Supreme Court Order dated April 2025 (publicly archived).
Conclusion
The ABC News article captures important aspects of a complex and high-profile legal controversy, but certain federal prosecution claims—such as the “stairwell escape”—are not supported by independent surveillance footage. This introduces a significant question over the prosecution’s core narrative. While Judge Dugan’s use of judicial immunity as a defense aligns with legal practice, the law does not extend that immunity to potential acts of physical obstruction outside official judicial duties. The article accurately reports statements from both sides but does not strongly contextualize the contradiction between video evidence and prosecutorial claims—revealing a gap in clarity rather than outright bias.
Encourage Readers to Take Action
Cut through the noise and make sense of confusing headlines. Download the DBUNK app for real facts, verified sources, and unbiased analysis. Stay informed and submit your own fact-check requests anytime—because truth shouldn’t come with uncertainty.
