A federal judge on Tuesday upheld the conviction of former Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan, who was found guilty in December of helping an undocumented immigrant evade Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers at her courthouse.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman declined to reconsider Dugan's conviction without setting a new sentencing date. He had previously postponed her sentencing on June 3. Dugan resigned earlier this year following her conviction.

The case centered on Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican immigrant who was set to appear before Dugan on three misdemeanor counts of battery. Six ICE agents and officers were waiting outside the courthouse. Dugan led Flores-Ruiz out a private courthouse door to evade them. Courtroom audio captured her telling her court reporter that she would "get the heat" for letting him go.

Flores-Ruiz has since been deported. He faced up to five years in prison on the obstruction charge, though first-time offenders rarely receive the maximum sentence.

What the Left Is Saying

Progressive legal advocates and Democratic lawmakers have raised concerns about the prosecution's reach into judicial conduct. Dugan's lawyers argued that Flores-Ruiz was not facing a pending proceeding but rather an arrest warrant, a distinction they said should have affected the obstruction charge's applicability.

Her legal team cited United States v. Hernandez, in which an immigrant was detained by ICE, escaped and was found again before being indicted on obstructing a pending immigration hearing. That conviction was overturned by a federal appeals court in April. "We believe the court's decision was wrong," Dugan's lawyers said in a statement to ABC News.

At oral argument, defense attorneys pressed the broader implications of the ruling. Adelman himself echoed their concerns in his decision, noting: "Given the estimated 10 million undocumented persons in the United States, does that mean there are 10 million pending proceedings?"

Critics have suggested the case reflects aggressive immigration enforcement under the Trump administration's crackdown on immigrants across the country.

What the Right Is Saying

Conservative legal commentators and Republican officials have defended the conviction, arguing that judges must follow the law regardless of personal views on immigration policy. They note that ICE officers were conducting a targeted operation with an arrest warrant for a specific individual.

Judge Adelman, a Clinton appointee and former Democratic state legislator, rejected the defense's arguments in his ruling. "The problem for the defense is that this case did not involve some random encounter on the street," he 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."

Prosecutors argued that Dugan abused her judicial position to obstruct federal law enforcement. Immigration enforcement advocates say the ruling establishes that courthouse protections do not extend to shielding individuals from lawful ICE arrests.

What the Numbers Show

Dugan was convicted on December 5 of obstruction charges and a lesser charge related to obstruction of a federal proceeding. The obstruction count carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison, while the second charge carries a maximum of one year.

Flores-Ruiz had been sought by ICE after being ordered removed from the United States in absentia in 2019. He was apprehended at the courthouse on April 23 and has since been deported to Mexico.

The estimated undocumented immigrant population in the United States stands at approximately 10 million people, a figure cited in Judge Adelman's ruling when addressing defense arguments about the scope of obstruction statutes.

Dugan's sentencing was originally scheduled for June 3 before being postponed. No new date had been set as of Tuesday's ruling.

The Bottom Line

The case is among the first to test how far courts will go in prosecuting state judges who interfere with federal immigration enforcement. Dugan could become the first sitting judge sent to prison for such conduct.

Her defense team may appeal Adelman's decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, where the Hernandez ruling that they cited originated. Legal observers say an appellate court ruling could clarify the boundaries of obstruction statutes when applied to judicial actors.

The case has drawn attention as part of broader tensions between state and federal authority over immigration enforcement during the Trump administration's aggressive deportation push.