A Wisconsin judge has been found guilty of obstruction for assisting a Mexican immigrant in avoiding federal authorities, following a jury’s decision on Thursday. The judge, Hannah Dugan, faced charges of obstruction and concealing an individual to prevent arrest. While the jury acquitted her on the concealment charge, she could still face up to five years in prison for obstruction.
The verdict was reached after six hours of deliberation, with no immediate information on the sentencing timeline. The case stirred controversy surrounding President Donald Trump’s immigration policies, with his administration labeling Dugan as an activist judge. Democrats, however, argued that the administration was targeting Dugan to discourage judicial resistance to immigration enforcement.
Following the verdict, Dugan and her legal team refrained from commenting to reporters as they left the courtroom. Her lead attorney expressed disappointment with the decision, emphasizing that the charges were nearly identical and questioning the split verdict. Dugan, who was suspended from her position amid the investigation, did not testify during the trial.
U.S. Attorney Brad Schimel denied any political motivation behind the case and urged a peaceful acceptance of the verdict. He emphasized the importance of safety in courthouse arrests and refuted claims of unfairness in apprehending wanted individuals within court premises.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche applauded the verdict, asserting that no one, including judges, is above the law. The outcome marked a success for the Trump administration, which has faced challenges in prosecuting prominent figures critical of the president.
The case stemmed from an incident where Dugan allegedly interfered with immigration authorities attempting to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, who had reentered the country illegally. Prosecutors argued that Dugan’s actions facilitated Flores-Ruiz’s escape, leading to his subsequent arrest and eventual deportation.
Testimonies presented during the trial highlighted differing perspectives on Dugan’s intentions, with colleagues expressing shock at her actions. The defense contended that Dugan was following courthouse protocols and did not deliberately obstruct law enforcement efforts.
The trial showcased the ongoing tensions between federal immigration policies and judicial independence, underscoring the complexities surrounding enforcement actions within court settings.