Why This Article Is Being Fact-Checked
A recent news article reporting the suspension of Judge Hannah Dugan raised questions about her federal charges, specifically regarding whether she broke federal law by obstructing a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrest. The user asked if her actions could result in prison time and how long the sentence might be. We fact-checked the claims made in the original article to clarify what’s accurate, what’s missing, and what consequences she could realistically face.
Understanding the Historical and Legal Background
Immigration enforcement has long been a flashpoint between federal authorities and local jurisdictions. Federal agencies like ICE and the FBI operate within their mandates to arrest individuals suspected of immigration violations, while judges and court officers must maintain due process and constitutional protections for all individuals. The current tensions between local sanctuary policies and federal immigration priorities have intensified legal interpretation struggles — particularly when local actors are accused of interfering with federal enforcement.
Fact-Check of Key Claims
Claim #1: Judge Dugan was charged with a federal felony for obstructing an ICE arrest of an undocumented immigrant.
This claim is accurate. According to the criminal complaint unsealed by federal prosecutors, Judge Dugan was charged with two counts: (1) “obstructing and impeding a proceeding before a department or agency of the United States” (a felony), and (2) “concealing an individual to prevent his discovery and arrest” (a misdemeanor). These charges stem from her alleged actions during a pretrial hearing at the Milwaukee Courthouse on April 18, 2025, where she allegedly misdirected federal officers away from defendant Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, who was subject to an immigration hold. Verified by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Eastern District of Wisconsin proceedings.
Claim #2: She could be sentenced to prison for up to six years if convicted.
This claim is accurate as well. According to federal sentencing guidelines and statements from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the felony count carries a maximum sentence of five years, while the misdemeanor can add up to one more year — a combined potential sentence of six years behind bars. However, sentencing would be at the discretion of the judge and depend on numerous factors including prior conduct, intent, and whether she accepts a plea deal.
Claim #3: Dugan intentionally misdirected federal agents and concealed the accused.
This claim, while central to the case, remains unproven at this time. As per the criminal complaint and witness statements, Judge Dugan allegedly told ICE officers to seek the chief judge’s office and left the courtroom visibly upset. However, there is no video or definitive evidence publicly released confirming that her intentions were to obstruct ICE or that she actively helped the undocumented individual escape. Witnesses cited in the complaint observed her demeanor and the resulting sequence of events, but intent — a critical component for conviction — remains contested. Therefore, this claim is pending adjudication and cannot yet be confirmed or classified as intentionally unlawful behavior.
Claim #4: Judge Dugan’s suspension is permanent.
This is misleading. The suspension is temporary, not permanent. The Wisconsin Supreme Court issued an administrative order suspending Judge Dugan “temporarily” from her duties based on its constitutional authority and pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings. The court clearly stated that the suspension will remain in effect “until further order.” So while she cannot currently perform judicial duties, her future status will depend on the case’s resolution.
Final Verdict and Analysis
The article by ABC News is largely factually accurate but lacks certain clarifying details that help readers understand the legal nuances at play. The headline and body of the article are based on court documents and official statements from law enforcement. However, some aspects, such as inferring Judge Dugan’s intent or overemphasizing the certainty of her conviction, can mislead readers into assuming guilt before trial. Importantly, claims that she “broke federal law” assume proven intent, which has not yet been legally established.
Empowering You to Take the Next Step
Misinformation thrives on partial truths and missing context. At DBUNK, we give you the tools to see through the sensational and uncover the facts. Download the DBUNK app today or follow us online to submit articles you want verified — fact-checking is free and always nonpartisan.
Read the original article here
