Former Judge's ICE Obstruction Conviction Upheld
MILWAUKEE, Wis. — June 18, 2026
A federal judge in Milwaukee denied former Wisconsin Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan’s motion for reconsideration Tuesday, upholding her felony obstruction conviction and clearing the way for sentencing in a case that drew national attention as an early flashpoint in the Trump administration’s courthouse immigration enforcement efforts.
U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, issued a 32-page order ruling that Dugan’s conduct on April 18, 2025, obstructed a “pending proceeding” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. Section 1505. On that date, Dugan led Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican national, out a private jury door while federal immigration agents waited in the corridor.
Dugan’s lawyers had pressed Adelman to reconsider after the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals split 2-1 in April in United States v. Hernandez, holding that ICE’s execution of an already-issued removal order did not count as a “pending proceeding” under the statute.
Adelman drew a sharp factual distinction. In this case, she wrote, ICE was still investigating, securing probable cause, and seeking to arrest Flores-Ruiz before any removal order had been reinstated. “This case did not involve some random encounter on the street,” Adelman wrote. “It was a targeted operation, conducted pursuant to agency procedures, including the issuance of an arrest warrant for a specific person, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz.”
The judge also rejected the defense’s broader claim that ICE arrests are indistinguishable from routine police work. “Unlike, say, the FBI, ICE can issue its own warrants and adjudicate and effectuate a removal, as it did with Flores-Ruiz, without the involvement of a court,” Adelman wrote. “This makes a difference under section 1505.”
A jury convicted Dugan, 67, on December 19 of the obstruction felony and acquitted her of a misdemeanor concealment charge. She resigned from the Milwaukee County Circuit Court two weeks later amid impeachment threats from Republican state lawmakers. She faces up to five years in prison, though federal guidelines typically recommend probation for first-time, nonviolent offenders.
Flores-Ruiz later pleaded guilty to illegal reentry and was deported on November 13, 2025. Dugan’s legal team described Tuesday’s ruling as “wrong.” The case is widely expected to reach the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after sentencing.
The decision comes amid ongoing national debate over ICE enforcement actions inside courthouses and the scope of judicial authority when federal immigration agents are executing warrants. Adelman’s order focuses on the specific facts of this operation — the existence of an arrest warrant and the targeted nature of the enforcement — as key to distinguishing it from routine police encounters. The ruling is likely to influence how courts in the 7th Circuit interpret the obstruction statute in similar courthouse interference cases going forward.
The tragic death of Nancy Guthrie and a subsequent arrest uncover a profound betrayal that has devastated her family.
The story of Nancy Guthrie began as a mystery that captured attention and concern.
At 84 years old, she was known as a quiet, deeply loved figure whose disappearance sent shockwaves through both her community and those who followed the case closely.
In the early days, the narrative seemed tragically familiar—a possible kidnapping.
Authorities searched tirelessly, neighbors spoke in hushed tones, and hope remained fragile but alive.
For her daughter, Savannah Guthrie, the uncertainty was perhaps the hardest part.
Waiting without answers can be more painful than facing the truth itself.
But as the investigation unfolded, subtle shifts began to emerge.
What once appeared to be an external threat slowly revealed signs of something closer to home.
Investigators, working methodically, began to piece together details that did not align with the initial assumptions. Timelines were reexamined.
Statements were revisited. And slowly, a different picture began to form.
When authorities confirmed that Nancy Guthrie had been found deceased, the emotional weight of the case deepened instantly.
It was no longer a search—it was a loss.
Then came the revelation that stunned everyone.
Tommaso Cioni, her stepfather, was arrested in connection with her death.
The news transformed the case overnight.
What had been viewed as a possible crime by an unknown perpetrator was now understood as something far more personal—a betrayal rooted within the family itself.
According to early reports, investigators are exploring motives tied to financial disputes and issues surrounding inheritance.
While details remain under investigation, the idea that greed and conflict could lead to such a tragic outcome has left many struggling to process what happened.
Because beyond the legal implications lies something deeper.
This is not just a case about crime. It is a story about trust—broken in the most profound way.
Families are often seen as places of safety, of unconditional support, of shared history.
To imagine harm coming from within that circle challenges something fundamental in how people understand relationships.
For those close to Nancy Guthrie, the grief is layered.
There is the pain of losing someone they loved.
There is the shock of how it happened.
And there is the haunting question of whether anything could have been done differently.
For Savannah Guthrie, the tragedy is deeply personal.
Known for her composure and professionalism, she now faces a reality no public role can prepare someone for—the loss of a parent under circumstances that are both devastating and complex.
Public reaction has been immediate and emotional.
Messages of support have poured in, reflecting a shared sense of sorrow and disbelief.
Many have expressed sympathy not only for the loss itself, but for the painful way in which the truth emerged.
At the same time, the case has sparked broader conversations.
About the pressures that can exist within families.
About the role of financial conflict in shaping relationships.
And about the importance of addressing tensions before they escalate into something irreversible.
As the legal process begins, there will be many questions still to answer.
What exactly happened in the final moments?
What evidence led investigators to their conclusions?
And how will justice be pursued in a case that has already left such deep emotional scars?
