Judicial Lessons From the Hannah Dugan Verdict

On December 18, disgraced Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan was found guilty of one count of felony obstruction, and not guilty of a misdemeanor count of concealing. Eight months prior, Dugan — in her duty as a judge — helped illegal immigrant Eduardo Flores-Ruiz try to evade the ICE agents who were in Dugan's courthouse.

There was speculation that Dugan was acting based on a memo sent to state employees by the Tony Evers administration. That memo outlined how state employees should behave if ICE or other federal agents showed up at their workplace, looking to enforce our immigration laws.

Immediately after Dugan was arrested by the FBI, the narrative was set: she was the victim of the fascist and tyrannical Trump administration, who was ruthlessly attacking judges. Just like the Nazis, according to some Leftists. That's rich coming from the people who spent the entirety of President Trump's Manhattan trial telling us "no one is above the law."

But the Left is nothing if not hypocritical, which is why the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is getting the message of the Dugan verdict exactly wrong.

Hannah Dugan verdict sends message to judges: 'Tread very lightly' https://t.co/rpktoLvTYB
— Journal Sentinel (@journalsentinel) December 29, 2025

According to the Journal Sentinel, "judges everywhere are taking notice."

Hannah Dugan had a choice. Whether she was driven by the Evers administration memo or her own deep hatred of Donald Trump, the fact remains that Dugan knowingly chose to help a violent illegal immigrant evade ICE. During the trial, the prosecution played audio of Dugan saying she'd "take the heat" for her actions, which was probably the most damning piece of evidence.

But I also think of officials like Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who has repeatedly ruled against the Trump administration, and US District Judge Indira Talwani who made a name for herself by usurping Congress' power of the purse to award federal funding to Planned Parenthood, and there's another lesson they can learn from the Dugan verdict: resisting Trump isn't worth it.

By all means, when the Trump administration is overstepping its bounds, rule against it. But stop with the judicial activism or you'll face consequences, too. Sure, you may not end up facing five years is prison as Dugan currently is, but there are other consequences.

Hannah Dugan's judicial career is over. She's a convicted felon and the Wisconsin Republicans have said they'll remove her from office if she doesn't resign. She cannot continue being a judge thanks to her activism.

Was it worth it?

Dugan was a judge for almost a decade before the Wisconsin State Supreme Court suspended her following her arrest. Prior to that, she was a lawyer. She may also lose the ability to practice law, given the nature of her crime and her felony conviction.

Was it worth throwing away a judicial career to stick it to Trump?

Was it worth facing five years in prison to resist an administration that will be out of office while Dugan is still behind bars?

That's a question that Boasberg and Talwani need to ask, because if they keep up with this judicial activism, Congress might just act to blow up the judiciary, and they'd be right to do so. Because we can't have co-equal branches of government when the judges think they overrule two of them via judicial fiat.

So the lesson from Dugan is not "tread lightly" or even that "no one is above the law."

It's that judges should do their jobs rather than be black-robed activists.

Will they learn it?

That remains to be seen.