Protesters gather outside of the Federal Building in Milwaukee to denounce the arrest of Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Attorneys at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin are pushing for the release of Jaciel Cirrus Rojas, who has been held in immigration detention since June. Rojas, a Mexican-born man who has lived in the U.S. since 2018, has no criminal record, Urban Milwaukee reported, and was arrested by immigration officers despite not being the target of their operation. 

An immigration judge ordered  Cirrus Rojas  released on  bond in July. But the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appealed his release and Cirrus Rojas remains in the Dodge County Jail. 

The judge’s order was vacated by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), followed by the denial of a federal court petition challenging the legality of Cirrus Rojas’ detention. Cirrus Rojas has had no contact with his wife and infant daughter for the 200 days during  which he has been detained. 

ACLU attorneys working for his release, say  Cirrus Rojas has a pending asylum claim and is  at risk of being tortured if deported to his home country. The hearing for Cirrus Rojas’ asylum claim has been rescheduled. Earlier this month, ACLU attorney Jennifer Bizzotto filed an emergency motion in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals pushing to overturn previous denials to release Rojas. 

“We have seen hundreds of cases nationwide in which federal judges have ruled that [immigration enforcement] cannot hold people in Cirrus Rojas’ position without bond hearings, and that has not deterred [immigration enforcement] from continuing to lock up people while flagrantly violating the law,” ACLU staff attorney Hannah Schwarz said in a statement.

An ever larger portion of ICE arrests involve people like Cirrus Rojas  who have no   criminal record 

Republican leaders in the state Legislature called Friday for Judge Hannah Dugan to resign or be impeached after a federal jury convicted her this week of a felony charge in connection with an immigration enforcement action in April at the Milwaukee County Courthouse. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Republican leaders in the Wisconsin Legislature called Friday for Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan to either resign or face impeachment after her conviction Thursday on a federal felony obstruction charge during an immigration enforcement action in the Milwaukee County courthouse in April.

“If Judge Dugan does not resign from her office immediately, the Assembly will begin impeachment proceedings,” Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) and Assembly Majority Leader Tyler August (R-Walworth) said in a joint statement issued Friday.  “Wisconsinites deserve to know that their judiciary is impartial and that justice is blind. Judge Hannah Dugan is neither, and her privilege of serving the people of Wisconsin has come to an end.” 

They noted that the last time that a Wisconsin judge was impeached was in 1853. Republican lawmakers have also introduced a bill that would withhold pay for suspended judges. 

After a four-day trial, a federal court jury convicted Dugan of felony obstruction for allowing a man who was in the country without legal authorization to exit her courtroom using a non-public hallway in April. Prosecutors argued that Dugan was trying to help the man avoid plainclothes  federal immigration agents who were waiting in the public hallway outside her court. 

Judge Dugan found guilty of felony obstruction in federal trial 

The jury found Dugan not guilty on a second charge of concealing the man, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, from federal agents. Dugan was suspended with pay by the Wisconsin Supreme Court after her arrest by FBI agents in April. 

In closing arguments, prosecutors cast Dugan as being angry due to the influx of ICE agents in the courthouse and said no one should second-guess law enforcement, including immigration officers. Defense attorneys told jurors that courthouse immigration arrests had created an environment of unease and that the federal government was trying to make an example of Dugan.

No sentencing date has been set for Dugan. Attorney Steven Biskupic, who helped represent Dugan, has said that his team plans to appeal the conviction.

Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan leaves the Milwaukee Federal Courthouse on May 15, 2025. Judge Dugan appeared in federal court to answer charges that she helped Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an undocumented immigrant, elude federal arrest while he was making an appearance in her courtroom on April 18. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Updated at 9:14 p.m. Thursday, Dec. 18

After six hours of deliberation, a federal jury found Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan guilty of felony obstruction but not guilty of misdemeanor concealing a person from federal immigration law enforcement. The high-profile federal trial stemmed from Dugan’s interaction with federal agents who came to her courtroom to arrest a man who was appearing before her on April 18.

“You don’t have to agree with immigration enforcement policy to see this was wrong. You just have to agree the law applies equally to everyone,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Kelly Brown Watzka told the jury in closing arguments.

Dugan’s case gained national attention, with her defense attorneys saying in closing arguments that the federal government was trying to make an example of the 66-year-old judge in an effort to “crush” those who try to stand up to federal power. Defense attorney Jason Luczak asked the jury to consider whether they were willing to accept the level of government overreach he and other attorneys argued was exemplified in the case. 

Dugan invoked her Fifth Amendment rights and didn’t testify during the trial. 

During their deliberations, the jurors asked multiple questions of the judge. Among them was whether Dugan needed to know exactly who immigration officers had come to the courthouse to arrest. The question went to the obstruction charge Dugan faced, and U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman decided that in fact Dugan would need to have known the federal agent’s target in order for the obstruction charge to apply. Prosecutors argued vehemently against Adelman’s decision.

Jurors also asked to see the policies of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in regards to serving warrants. 

Later, after another jury question, Adelman advised jurors that Dugan needed to have “sufficient knowledge” of a “pending proceeding,” as defined in statute, in order to obstruct that proceeding. 

Closing arguments

Prosecutors made their closing arguments in the federal trial Thursday, asking jurors to consider what happens when judges decide which laws they want to follow based on their own personal beliefs. Dugan was accused of interfering with federal agents as they tried to make an immigration arrest outside her courtroom, and with helping their target to evade arrest. Jurors, Assistant U.S. Attorney Kelly Brown Watzka said in her closing argument, must draw a line, without which “there is only chaos,” and that “chaos is what the rule of law is intended to prevent. 

Calling immigration enforcement a “polarizing issue” nationwide, prosecutors said that Dugan was not on trial for her personal beliefs, but because she “stepped outside of the law.” As they flashed slides and footage to the jury, the prosecution heavily featured statements from Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Kristela Cervera, who accompanied Dugan into the hallway at the courthouse to confront the agents. Cervera testified against Dugan saying, “judges shouldn’t be helping defendants evade arrest,” a quote prosecutors highlighted to the jury. 

Dugan knew that the agents had a warrant, prosecutors argued, yet concealed Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, the immigrant they were there to arrest. Dugan’s obstruction of the agents was completed the moment she led Flores-Ruiz and his attorney, Mercedes de la Rosa, to a non-public door to exit her courtroom, the prosecution asserted. Flores-Ruiz exited into the same hallway where agents were waiting for him, and they arrested him shortly afterwards outside the courthouse. But “it simply does not matter what happened next,” prosecutors said. 

Although de la Rosa, whom prosecutors described as “naive and inexperienced,” took the door to the public hallway where agents were waiting, they told the jury Dugan intended for Flores-Ruiz and his attorney to use a staircase to exit on the fifth floor. To buttress their argument, prosecutors played courtroom audio that captured Dugan talking with court reporter Joan Butz and saying “down the stairs” as well as Dugan saying, “I’ll do it…I’ll take the heat,” and Butz responding, “I’d rather get in trouble.” 

Prosecutors argued that had Flores-Ruiz taken the stairs instead of going out into the hallway, that the agents “would have never found” the Mexican-born man, who was in the country without legal authorization. Repeatedly, prosecutors said that no one should ever “second guess” the decisions of ICE agents and law enforcement. 

Dugan was described as “stern” and “angrily pointing” in the hallway, rounding up nearly the entire arrest team and telling them to go to the chief judge’s office. Cervera led the agents to the office, testifying that she felt “abandoned” by Dugan and  “roped into” Dugan’s plan. “No one is above the law,” the prosecution stressed.

Attorney Jason Luczak, delivering the closing  for Dugan’s defense, tried to poke holes in the prosecution’s narrative. “This is a very important case; this is a very unprecedented trial,” Luczak said. “Make no mistake…the government is trying to make an example” out of Dugan, he said. He added that the jury had the power to check what he described as “overreach” by the federal government. 

Luczak stressed that prior to the second Trump administration, ICE arrests had never occurred at the Milwaukee County Courthouse. When the arrests began in late March, individuals had been reportedly arrested in elevators and before attending family court, actions which should have been reported up the agency’s chain of command but weren’t, he said. “They’re not even following their own policies,” Luczak said. “This caused concerns, legitimate concerns, among the judges.” 

The jury was asked to consider whether they really believe that Dugan would put her career at risk for Flores-Ruiz. “This case is riddled with doubts,” said Luczak, stressing that the jury could only convict if they find Dugan guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. “There are consequences on rubber-stamping what the government wants you to rubber-stamp,” he said.

Jurors were reminded of the many emails sent by various judges asking for a policy, sharing stories of having people detained during court, and the slew of questions they had about how the county courthouse could respond. Chief Judge Carl Ashley had released a statement saying that ICE presence at the courthouse discouraged participation in the justice process and eroded trust in the courts’ integrity. 

Luczak also cast doubt on Cervera’s testimony. Jurors were played mute security camera video and asked to decide whether they believe Cervera that Dugan told the agents three times that they needed a judicial warrant, something that didn’t appear to happen in the video. “Judge Cervera is wrong,” said Luczak. “I don’t know if she’s lying, but I could think of some reasons why.” Cervera, the attorney argued, was trying to save herself by throwing Dugan under the bus. “You’re either a friend or an enemy of the government,” he said, asking the jury to consider why prosecutors relied on her statements so heavily. 

When Dugan spoke with the agents, Luczak said, “she’s not being confrontational, she’s being a judge.” He also highlighted that agents contradicted themselves in testimony and in the interviews they gave to FBI agents after the incident. Luczak pointed out that the agents never ran down the hallway to the elevators, as they’d implied. The audio evidence provided by prosecutors had also been taken from multiple microphones and put into one file, and was not audible in many areas, Luczak told the jury, adding, “I don’t think you can see this as very good evidence at all.” 

“If you don’t trust the evidence that the government is putting forward, it’s just another reasonable doubt,” Luczak said. Dugan never concealed Flores-Ruiz from the agents, who never entered her court to keep eyes on him, he said, adding that she never told de la Rosa to take the stairs. Luczak highlighted that prosecutors showed the jury video of the hall, with the filmer going down the stairs and not into the hallway, the opposite of what actually occurred. He called the government’s downplaying of concerns around ICE “tone deaf,” and questioned why Cervera herself texted her sister to warn her about sweeping arrests coming to the courthouse if she, too, didn’t have concerns.

“Justice is not what the government is seeking today,” Luczak. “They’re just wrong.” He told the jury to rely on Dugan’s emails to determine her state of mind, including one where she wrote: “We are in some uncharted waters with some very serious and even potential tragic community interests at risk in the balance.” 

The jury was given instructions by Adelman, and began deliberations shortly after 2 p.m. At around 3:45 p.m., the jury sent out a question to the judge. Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Brad Schimel, who lost a bid for the Wisconsin Supreme Court earlier this year, made an appearance in the gallery as Adelman read the question from jurors about whether they were allowed to see ICE policies, which were included among the exhibits. 

Defense calls former Mayor Barrett as character witness

As witness testimony in the trial against Dugan concluded Thursday morning, Milwaukee County judges and public defenders spoke about the confusion and questions they faced when Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) began arresting people at the county courthouse. Former Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett was also called to the stand as a character witness, testifying that he’s  known Dugan for over 50 years since they were in high school together. 

Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judges Katie Kegel and Laura Gramling-Perez testified for the defense about emails local judges sent each other, asking for guidance and sharing stories about having people “snatched” out of their courtrooms and seeing ICE agents sitting in cars outside the court. 

One judge chimed in on the chain, “does this mean that Milwaukee County is cooperating with ICE?” Milwaukee County does not cooperate with ICE detainer requests in the jail. The Milwaukee Police Department also has its own policies limiting cooperation with ICE.

Judges air concerns about courthouse arrests

In one of her emails, Gramling-Perez strongly urged the creation of a policy on courthouse arrests by ICE. Under such a policy, she testified, ICE agents would be required to check in with the chief judge before conducting any enforcement. When the arrest team arrived the morning of April 18, they checked in with security who notified their supervisors at the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office. Security initially believed the agents would need to be escorted by the sheriff’s office, but a sergeant told them that wouldn’t be necessary. 

Gramling-Perez reviewed emails on the stand that said “the historic protocols are now shifting quickly,” and explaining  that although state and local law enforcement have conducted arrests around the court in the past, those activities were always guided by clear policies or practices which were respected by law enforcement. “The ICE detentions are a different animal,” one email stated.

Prosecutors repeatedly attempted to get Gramling-Perez to say that ICE arrests were allowed in public hallways, per the “key takeaways” that she outlined in her email to Dugan and other judges. Gramling-Perez, however, didn’t budge. When prosecutors showed her images of documents they claimed were part of her presentation, she said she’d never seen them before. When they pressed her to say that ICE arrests could happen in public hallways, she countered that her emailed explanations were not all inclusive, that she is not an expert on the matter, but that even public hallway arrests have their limits. 

Gramling-Perez testified that although discussion of a policy had begun, no policy had yet been established by the chief judge. 

Attorney Maura Gingerich, a public defender, was also called to the stand as a defense witness. Gingerich testified wearing a black suit with a black mask she said she wore for health reasons — attire similar to what she wore on April 18, when security cameras captured her photographing the plain-clothes ICE, FBI, DEA, and Border Patrol task force members in the courthouse hallway. Gingerich testified that she took photographs of the agents to send to her supervisor, so that the chief judge would be notified that the agents had returned and could offer guidance. 

“I think that it was very stressful to see what I thought were a number of law enforcement on the sixth floor without uniform,” Gingerich testified, noting she had already gone to another courtroom when Dugan approached the agents. One of the prosecutors  suggested  Gingerich followed the agents to another courtroom and was cooperating with Dugan,  saying, “I know what you guys were trying to do,” but Gingrich denied that characterization. Gingrich said she never saw Dugan that morning. 

Barrett calls Dugan ‘extremely honest’; Dugan invokes the Fifth Amendment

Former Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett testified as a character witness for Dugan, saying he has known her and the Dugan family for half a century. They first met when they attended the same high school.

Barrett described Dugan as very active in the community, an enthusiastic participant in community organizations and in  her church. “I think that she is extremely honest and I know that she will tell you exactly how she feels,” Barrett testified, adding that he feels that Dugan is a good person. 

The defense rested its case ahead of a lunch break. Dugan invoked her Fifth Amendment rights not to testify. Defense attorney Steven Biskupic noted on the record that he objected  to draft instructions the judge gave the jury, after Adleman chose jury instructions crafted by the prosecution instead of the defense.

Dugan faces up to five years in prison and a $350,000 fine for the felony conviction, but as a nonviolent offender with a record of service to her community is unlikely to be sentenced to time behind bars. Her sentencing hearing has not yet been scheduled.

Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan leaves the Milwaukee Federal Courthouse. Judge Dugan is on trial on charges that she helped Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an undocumented immigrant, elude federal arrest while he was making an appearance in her courtroom on April 18. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Milwaukee County Chief Judge Carl Ashley took the stand on the third day of the high profile trial of  Judge Hannah Dugan, who is accused of obstructing federal immigration agents and hiding the man they came to the Milwaukee County Courthouse to arrest. 

Ashley was asked about an email he wrote on April 4 to his fellow judges, following a string of courthouse arrests by immigration officers. The chief judge, like many of his colleagues, was disturbed by the arrests, and feared that they would disrupt the courthouse’s business and erode the public’s trust that the courthouse was a safe place. 

Ashley wrote that ICE arrests could likely be prohibited inside courtrooms but that “I’m not sure we have the authority to intervene with what happens in the public hallway.”

As the judges were discussing a plan for responding to the ICE presence at the courthouse, Ashley offered a training presentation — which Dugan was unable to attend  — that highlighted in part that immigration enforcement could happen in the public hallways, but not against certain groups of people such as victims of crimes. 

While questioning Ashley, prosecutors showed the jury an email Dugan sent in response to the training which said that “optimally” a policy guiding how court staff should respond to the presence of immigration officers would be desirable. Less than an hour later, Ashley attached a draft policy to an email, and sent it off to Dugan and other judges. Ashley testified that he wanted as much feedback on the policy as possible, including from the sheriff’s office, the district attorney and other “system partners.” He also reached out to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to get their input, agreeing with prosecutors who said Ashley “wanted to get it right.” 

Although the policy had been drafted, it had not been officially instituted. The policy was non-binding on April 18 when agents arrived outside Dugan’s courtroom, and did not explicitly state that ICE could not make arrests in the public hallway, Ashley acknowledged on the stand. 

Part of the draft  policy advised court staff to contact their immediate supervisors about the presence of ICE, and said Ashley should be among those notified. Dugan’s defense attorneys argued in prior days of testimony that Dugan was following the draft policy when she went into the hallway outside her courtroom to confirm that the plain-clothes agents there had a non-judicial, administrative warrant and to tell them to go check in with the chief judge. The draft policy stated that all court staff were expected to comply with its guidance, and advised staff that administrative  warrants do not compel staff to comply with requests from ICE agents. 

Ashley testified that he was at home when the agents were sent to his office by Dugan. He recalled getting a call from Brian Barkow, chief deputy of the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office, advising him that ICE was in the building to arrest someone. After calling the deputy administrator, Ashley confirmed that agents were there. However, Ashley did not direct them to be brought to his office, the chief judge testified. Texts Ashley sent to Dugan telling her to call him went unanswered. She later replied that she had left the court to attend Good Friday church services. 

“I was concerned about what might’ve happened,” said Ashley, who then sent out another email notifying the judges about the ICE activity at the courthouse. He mentioned in the email that “all the agent’s actions were consistent with the draft policy.” 

Judges, courthouse staff upset by ICE presence

Prosecutors have accused Dugan of having “strongly held views” about ICE arrests at the courthouse. Wednesday’s testimony demonstrated that judges and courthouse staff were struggling with the arrival of ICE at the courthouse and trying to formulate a response.

On April 6, in the wake of the first arrests, Ashley issued a press release stating that ICE operating around the courthouse “can deter individuals, particularly immigrants and marginalized communities, from attending court hearings, seeking legal assistance, or reporting crimes,” and that “this undermines the fundamental right to access the courts and seek legal remedies.” This could lead to a lack of trust in the judicial system which could foster “a reluctance to engage with law enforcement, legal representation, and the courts, ultimately hindering the administration of justice.” 

Ashley read the press release on the stand, his voice booming through the federal courtroom. It stated  that “allowing ICE agents to operate within courthouse complexes has the potential to significantly damage the integrity of the court system,” and that “it undermines the principles of justice, fairness, and equality before the law, and ultimately jeopardizes the rights of individuals seeking to navigate the legal process. Courts remain safe havens for all individuals, free from the threats of immigration enforcement.”

The chief judge confirmed on the stand that he continued to hold these beliefs. During cross examination, defense attorneys showed a version of the draft policy, highlighting that it was based on a policy created by San Francisco, California. Ashley testified to editing the draft policy by removing a sentence stating that ICE agents are allowed to arrest people in the public areas of a courthouse, which appeared in the original policy from California. 

Melissa Buss, a Milwaukee County assistant district attorney who was assigned to Dugan’s court, testified Wednesday that she saw Dugan motion to attorney Mercedes de la Rosa — who was representing Flores-Ruiz — to “come here” as she stood by the jury door leading to the non-public hallway. Buss said it was unusual that Dugan appeared to be “directing” de la Rosa, and that the judge seemed “frustrated” whereas de la Rosa seemed “frazzled or confused.” Buss said that she wasn’t aware that Dugan had called Flores-Ruiz’s case early, despite audio recordings showing that Dugan spoke into a microphone and called the man’s case loudly, and set a date for him to re-appear via Zoom. 

Clerk calls ICE agent ‘fascist’

Prosecutors also called Alan Freed Jr., a deputy clerk in Dugan’s court. Freed recalled hearing from public defenders that ICE was in the hallways, saying that he was “upset and a little outraged.” Freed walked back into the courtroom to tell Dugan that there were “ICE guys in the hallway,” which was captured on courtroom audio. Freed also said that Dugan told him not to call the chief judge. Later, when Freed checked back in the hall, he saw agents walking towards the chief judge’s office after being directed there by Dugan. As one of the agents walked past Freed testified that he called the agent a “fascist.” 

Freed was grilled by prosecutors about who said what in the audio recordings, but he testified that he couldn’t recall some of the events of April 18. He’d sat through thousands of cases, including many in Dugan’s court, and had never seen a similar chain of events play out. Freed said it is not unusual for cases to be called off the record as Flores-Ruiz’s was, echoing Buss who said judges can call cases at random and that this was not unusual as prosecutors argued. 

Hasty exit out a side door

De la Rosa also testified that she was concerned about the news that ICE was in the building when she arrived at the courthouse. She’d only been a public defender in Milwaukee since March 2025, not long before ICE began arresting people inside the building. When Flores-Ruiz arrived, she was nervous to get him in and out of the building as quickly as possible to avoid contact with ICE. She asked for the pretrial hearing to be called off the record, and described herself as visibly anxious and even “obnoxious.” 

After Dugan was finished calling her case, de la Rosa recalled Dugan motioning for her and Flores-Ruiz to come by the jury door. She’d had judges lead her and clients out of side doors before, but only in particular circumstances, such as to avoid emotional victims, she said. “I kind of remember being scared or freaked out,” she testified, adding that she was stressed about the agents, and was bouncing back and forth between two languages to translate what was happening to Flores-Ruiz. “My brain was spinning,” she said. When the jury door opened into the hallway, de la Rosa testified, Dugan took a couple of steps in and directed her and her client straight down the hall towards the door that led to the public hallway. 

De la Rosa testified that she was never directed to go to the staircase in that hall, which led to a different floor, and didn’t even know that it existed. Her case had been called before attorney Walter Piel, who arrived early to court with his client. “I was a little frustrated that I wasn’t called first,” Piel testified, but added that he didn’t think that was unusual. When de la Rosa got outside, after unknowingly riding the elevator down with a plain-clothes ICE agent, she heard someone call Flores-Ruiz’s name. Flores-Ruiz ran, and agents arrested him down the street after a brief foot pursuit. 

The young defense attorney recalled being grilled about the incident by the FBI multiple times in interviews which stretched four to six hours in total. De la Rosa testified Wednesday that when Dugan allowed her to use the non-public hallway, she interpreted it as a “mentoring moment” because she was a new attorney unsure how to handle this unique situation. 

Joan Butz, a court reporter in Dugan’s courtroom, testified that she  was irritated when she heard that ICE had returned. “That pisses me off,” she remembered telling one of the other staff. Butz was captured on audio talking with Dugan about “down the stairs,” in a  conversation that wasn’t cleanly recorded. Butz testified that she offered to show de la Rosa the exit near the jury box, saying she just wanted to be helpful. Butz admitted, however, that she believed the correct exit would have been the staircase, and that the wrong exit would have been into the hallway where the agents were waiting. 

Prosecutors rested their case Wednesday, allowing the court day to conclude almost two hours earlier than usual. On Thursday, defense attorneys are expected to call several more witnesses. 

The federal courthouse in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Testimony from federal agents continued into the second day of Milwaukee Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan’s federal trial, where Dugan faces charges of obstructing immigration officers and concealing a man they were trying to arrest outside her courtroom in April. Prosecutors repeatedly asked agents about Dugan’s tone when she spoke with them, which they described as upset, angry, direct and stern. A colleague of Dugan’s, Judge Kristela Cervera, who was with Dugan when she confronted agents in the hallway outside her courtroom, also testified that Dugan’s demeanor during the encounter made her uncomfortable.

On Tuesday, FBI agent Jeffrey Baker testified about his encounter with Dugan as part of the six-man arrest team that entered the Milwaukee County Courthouse in April in search of Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a 30-year-old Mexican-born man who was in the country without legal authorization.

During Baker’s testimony, details emerged about a woman the agents encountered in the hallway whom they believed was a public defender and who noticed them and began taking  pictures of the agents before Dugan arrived and spoke with them. Images of a Signal Chat used by the arrest team which had been named the “Frozen Water Group,” a reference to ICE, revealed that agents texted that the woman had “been around for more than one of these before.” Another message stated “she was talking sh*t about us with another attorney about how we are not very covert.” 

The prior arrests the agents were referring to had occurred at the courthouse from late March to early April, fueling concern among Milwaukee County judges about how to ensure the courthouse remained a safe and orderly place to conduct business. Testimony and text messages suggest that the prior arrests had all been made by the same team Dugan spoke with on April 18. 

Defense attorneys highlighted the agent’s choice of profile images for the “Frozen Water Group” chat. One agent had chosen an image of a skull over a pill bottle crossed by two syringes with a thin blue line flag in the background. Brian Ayers, a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent, who said that this was his account in the Signal chat, testified Tuesday that the logo belonged to the DEA opioid task force. Another showed a man licking the barrel of a handgun. Ayers testified that he followed Flores-Ruiz down the hall, and rode the elevator down with him and his lawyer without revealing that he was a federal agent. 

FBI agents Phillip Jackling, Customs and Border Protection agent Joseph Zurao, and ICE deportation officer Joseph Vasconcellos, who were all part of that Signal chat, described Dugan coming out to ask whether they were there to attend court hearings, and pointing them down the hall to Chief Judge Carl Ashley’s office. Jackling described Dugan as “very direct, and she seemed upset,” and said that leaving the rest of the arrest team in the hall “caused me to have a little bit of uncertainty about what was going to happen next.” Zurao said that Dugan told the agents to “get out” or “leave”. 

Vasconcellos said that he was unnerved by the attorney photographing them, and that because he’d been stabbed, shot, and suffered nerve damage in his neck over the course of  his career, he had concerns that their plan to use the courthouse as a “safe place” to arrest people had gone south. “I was honestly concerned that we had had our pictures taken and the staff knew who we were,” Vasconcellos testified. He’d texted in the group chat, speaking of the public defender photographing them, “this is going to be a pain in the d-ck.”

Vasconcellos described Dugan as “very stern and upset,” and said when Dugan told them to leave the hall and go to Ashley’s office, “I told her no.” Vasconcellos eventually went into the chief judge’s office, where he and other agents waited to get connected to Ashley over the phone. Ashley discussed the courthouse draft policy governing immigration enforcement in and around the building at length with the agents. When Vasconcellos left Ashley’s office, the rest of the arrest team had already followed Flores-Ruiz outside and arrested him. 

Vasconcellos testified that he was aware that judges could speak  sternly and that he was not familiar with Dugan and didn’t know if that tone was normal for her. Defense attorneys highlighted that only DEA Special Agent Ayers told FBI investigators that he heard Dugan yelling at the team, something none of the other task force agents described in their testimony. Ayers also refuted testimony from Zuaro, who claimed to have told Ayers to “get your ass out in the hallway in case he comes out,” an assertion that was not  documented in reports and interviews conducted by investigators. Nile Hendrix-Whitmore, a victim witness advocate with the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office, also testified that she did not hear any yelling or arguing when Dugan spoke with the agents. 

Judge testifies about discomfort with Dugan

Later in the day, Judge Cervera took the stand. Cervera recalled that she had a busy schedule on April 18, and had arrived to court early to begin working on her cases. She’d left the building to move her car and as she walked back she ran into Dugan who was presumably doing the same. Not long after she arrived back to her courtroom, Cervera testified that Dugan came in and beckoned her over. “I thought something bad had happened,” said Cervera. “It was embarrassing to be summoned in that way.”

Cervera testified that Dugan gave the impression that  “it was urgent” and that Dugan “seemed irritated.” When Cervera began to remove her robes, she testified that Dugan told her to keep them on, which she did because Dugan was a more senior judge. “I didn’t want to walk into the hallway with my robe,” Cervera testified, though she said she didn’t tell Dugan that she was uncomfortable. 

When the two approached the agents and Dugan asked whether they had a judicial warrant, Cervera said that “her irritation seemed to progress into anger.” Cervera said that Dugan was “expressing her views to the officer” and that she thought Dugan “could have been a little more diplomatic.” Nevertheless, Cervera testified that the interaction was “pretty straightforward and quick,” and that she had her own questions about the kind of warrant the agents had. Dugan told them that a judicial warrant signed by a judge, not an administrative warrant signed by an ICE officer, would be needed, Cervera testified.

Cervera escorted the agents to Ashley’s office and recalled looking back and not seeing Dugan follow them. “I felt abandoned,” she said on the stand. “I thought she left me.” As Cervera looked over the warrant herself, she noticed other agents coming into the hall leading to the chief judge’s office. When Cervera took a short cut through Dugan’s court to get back to her own room, Cervera noticed that Dugan was hearing cases. “I was irritated at that point,” she said, repeating that she felt “abandoned” by her fellow judge. 

Bits and pieces of what happened then made it to Cervera, including Flores-Ruiz being arrested outside, and attorneys pumping their fists telling her, “You go, Judge,” and saying, “Judge, you’re ‘goated’ now,” a reference to the term “Greatest Of All Time.” Cervera testified that one attorney, the same who took pictures of agents in the hall, told her, “We knew what you guys were trying to do.” The next day, she heard that the FBI would be getting involved. “I was shocked” and “mortified,” she testified. “Judges shouldn’t be helping defendants avoid arrest.”

Sometime after April 18, Cervera recalled running into Dugan in an elevator. “I didn’t want to run into her at this point,” Cervera testified. Dugan allegedly told Cervera that she was “in the dog house with Carl,” referring to the chief judge. “She seemed eager to tell me about what happened on Friday,” Cervera said. 

Defense attorneys questioned Cervera about whether she knew ICE agents were waiting outside her courtroom as well, which she denied. When she got home on April 18, she Googled Vasconcellos’ name, and warned her sister — who is also an attorney who had cases with clients at the Milwaukee courthouse coming up — that ICE was more active in the building. Defense attorneys noted that when she was called to a grand jury, Cervera did not reveal that she had warned her sister about the federal operations. 

Cervera said on the stand that she was talking to her sister about what appeared to be “sweeping arrests” happening around the country, and that she’d never heard of ICE arrests at the courthouse prior to March. Multiple members of the arrest team testified that they had only been transferred to ICE Emergency Removal Operations (ERO) duties in early 2025, after President Donald Trump took office. 

Judge Hannah Dugan leaves court in her federal trial, where she faces charges of obstructing immigration officers. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

The gallery was packed shoulder-to-shoulder Monday morning as Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan entered the courtroom of U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman not as a judge, but as a criminal defendant. Dugan is accused of obstructing federal agents in their efforts to arrest a Mexican-born man who was in the country without legal authorization, and who appeared in Dugan’s misdemeanor criminal court back in April. If convicted in what Adelman signaled would be no more than a week-long trial, Dugan could face six years in prison.

Attorneys on both sides of the trial painted very different pictures of Dugan during their opening statements, which can include statements which do not have to be demonstrated by evidence. 

Opening statements from prosecutors lasted nearly an hour, with the lawyers saying that Dugan “knew what she was doing was wrong.” Repeatedly, prosecutors pointed to courtroom audio transcribed by the FBI which captured Dugan saying, “I’ll get the heat,” when talking to her courtroom staff about how to respond to the fact that immigration agents were waiting in the hallway to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a man appearing before her on misdemeanor charges of battery and domestic violence. 

Prosecutors called the Milwaukee County Courthouse “a safe place where arrests are routine,” allowing federal agents to confront targets who have passed through security screening and are unarmed. An arrest team of six federal agents from the FBI, DEA, Border Patrol, and ICE wearing plain clothes and carrying concealed weapons were attempting to blend into the normal hustle and bustle in the courthouse. Prosecutors said that an FBI agent told a Milwaukee sheriff’s deputy, who was serving as a bailiff for Dugan’s courtroom, that they were there to arrest Flores-Ruiz. “Everything was proceeding in a routine way,” prosecutors told the jury, until the court clerk told Dugan that agents were in the hallway for an immigration arrest. 

Jurors watched mute video compiled from security cameras showing Dugan, accompanied by fellow Circuit Court Judge Kristela Cervera, walking down the public hall in their judge robes to find out what the agents waiting outside the courtroom wanted. Both judges can be seen pointing to the chief judge’s office, with agents then following Cervera to consult with Chief Judge Carl Ashley. 

When Dugan returned to her courtroom she called Flores-Ruiz first out of the at least 33 cases she had on the docket, setting a court date and telling Flores-Ruiz he was welcome to attend remotely over Zoom. After that, prosecutors allege that Dugan and her court staff directed Flores-Ruiz to an exit in the courtroom which led to a non-public hallway. At the end of the hallway Flores-Ruiz could either take a staircase leading down to the fifth floor, or go through a door which led back out to the public hallway where agents were waiting. 

Flores-Ruiz and his attorney exited through the door and walked  right past the federal agents. Some of the agents trailed Flores-Ruiz to the elevator, while the rest of the arrest team left Ashley’s office. Cameras outside the courthouse captured agents running down a sidewalk after Flores-Ruiz and his attorney. 

Dugan is accused by prosecutors of “dividing” the arrest team by directing them to the chief judge. They say that Dugan had “strongly held views” about immigration enforcement in courts which led her to “cross the line,” and that the now-suspended judge had “orchestrated” Flores-Ruiz’s “escape from federal law enforcement.” 

Prosecutors claimed Dugan told Cervera to keep her robes on during the interaction, and that Cervera and Flores-Ruiz’s defense attorney Mercedes De La Rosa were both uncomfortable with Dugan’s wishes to confront the agents. 

Dugan’s defense team emphasized that the door Flores-Ruiz used to exit the courtroom was just 11 feet from the courtroom’s main entrance. They also discussed the upheaval the Trump administration’s deportation operations had caused at the Milwaukee County Courthouse before the interaction with Dugan. ICE arrests had occurred in late March and early April, alarming county judges. The defense displayed emails from courthouse personnel they said demonstrated the “paranoid” atmosphere at the courthouse and which described concerns about people not showing up to court and suspicious vehicles parked outside that looked like they belonged to federal law enforcement. 

Courthouse was developing a policy on ICE

At the time of Flores-Ruiz’s arrest, Chief Judge Ashley was drafting a policy on how to respond to immigration enforcement coming inside the courts. Judges had been invited to a training presentation on the matter which Dugan was unable to attend, but she had been briefed on its main points. 

The draft policy noted that administrative warrants of the type federal agents presented to arrest Flores-Ruiz are not treated the same way as judicial warrants. Whereas a judicial warrant would give the agents full access to the building, administrative warrants limit them to the public areas of the courthouse. Court staff were also instructed to direct immigration officers to their immediate supervisors, which Dugan appeared to be doing by directing them to Ashley, her attorneys said, adding  that the chief judge needed to be notified if a warrant is executed. 

Ashley had also issued a press release after the rash of ICE arrests saying in part that “the court must remain a safe haven,” Dugan’s attorney Steven Biskupic noted, as images of courthouse emails, messages, and press releases were presented  to jurors on two screens. Dugan did not obstruct the agents, or give direction to anyone else to do so, her attorneys argued. 

Federal agents testify

Three federal agents took the stand Monday and gave lengthy testimony, starting with Erin Lucker of the FBI. Lucker was not involved with the immigration arrest, but helped gather and analyze video and evidence to charge Dugan. Using audio from courtroom microphones, Lucker created a transcript and timeline of events from the time Dugan first approached the agents until Flores-Ruiz was arrested outside. 

The audio was very poor in places, and Judge Adelman reminded the jury that the audio is evidence, not the transcript, and that if they could not understand what is said on the audio, they were not allowed to rely on the transcript instead. In a portion of the audio, Dugan can be heard talking to court staff about the exit to the hallway, with a voice saying “down the stairs,” though some of what’s being said was inaudible. Prosecutors also said that the alleged victims of the domestic violence and battery charges Flores-Ruiz faced were kept waiting in the courtroom to wonder what happened after he left. 

In response to questions from Dugan’s defense attorneys, Lucker said she had no firsthand knowledge of the courthouse itself or what business there usually looks like. She had not participated in an arrest team like the one assembled for Flores-Ruiz, she said. She also responded to the defense that she wasn’t aware that before January 2025 immigration enforcement officers did not, as a matter of policy, target people for arrest at courthouses. 

Defense attorneys also pointed out that a video Lucker helped produce shows a walkthrough of Dugan’s courtroom and the non-public hallway outside ends with the filmer walking down the stairs, not taking the entrance to the hallway which Flores-Ruiz took. Lucker said she hadn’t walked down those stairs, and was unaware that to get out of the building you’d need to pass by multiple security checkpoints. 

Testimony revealed that federal agents had been surveilling Flores-Ruiz at his home and followed him to the courthouse. Defense attorneys questioned why a traffic stop wasn’t made. The task force agents used an encrypted Signal chat which they’d named the “Frozen Water Group” to communicate about the ICE operation. 

FBI Special Agent Jeffrey Baker,  one of the plain-clothes agents on the arrest team, testified that he  had only been on the ERO team since February when the team came for Flores-Ruiz in April. Baker said Dugan “divided” the arrest team by leading members into the chief judge’s office, and that when he talked to Dugan “she seemed to be angry at that point.” When he went to Ashley’s office, Baker said he wasn’t told where he was going or why. He was informed that Flores-Ruiz had left the building either by a text or phone call from another agent.

On Tuesday, Baker will be questioned by defense attorneys.

People gather to sing and show support for Judge Hannah Dugan ahead of her federal trial. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

A federal jury will begin hearing the case against Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan, 66, on Monday in a lawsuit that has drawn national attention, weighing how far the Trump administration can go in squashing resistance to its nationwide crackdown on immigrants. 

The case revolves around events in  April, when Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a 30-year-old Mexican immigrant who had  been charged with battery, appeared in Dugan’s courtroom. Federal agents also arrived at the courtroom that day, seeking Flores-Ruiz, whom they said entered the country illegally over a decade ago. 

Dugan confronted  the federal agents as they waited outside her courtroom. Later, she led Flores-Ruiz  and his attorney out of her courtroom through a side door which led  into the same hallway where the federal agents were waiting. Flores-Ruiz was followed into the elevator and outside by the agents, who chased and then arrested him. 

Days later, Dugan was arrested and handcuffed by FBI agents and charged with obstruction and concealing an individual. FBI Director Kash Patel posted photographs of Dugan in handcuffs and celebrated her arrest, writing on X, “No one is above the law.” 

In early April, prior to Flores-Ruiz, ICE arrested two other people at the Milwaukee County Courthouse. Officials expressed concerns that the arrests were causing defendants, witnesses and victims to avoid coming to court or cooperating with law enforcement. 

Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley objected to what he characterized as intimidation tactics in enforcing its immigration crackdown and wielding the power of the state against  “anyone who opposes these policies.” In a statement, Crowley said, “we have an obligation to administer our courts in a safe, efficient manner that delivers due process for anyone.” 

Christine Neumann-Ortiz, executive director of the immigrant rights group Voces de la Frontera, said that the Trump officials  “basically want to be unleashed to do whatever they want to commit these raids in courtrooms across the country.” Milwaukee-area Democratic Sens. Chris Larson and Tim Carpenter and Reps. Christine Sinicki, Darrin Madison, Supreme Moore Omokunde, Angelito Tenorio, and Sequanna Taylor issued a joint statement calling the county courthouse “a sanctuary for justice and peace where the accused come forward willingly in a fair an unbiased process”, and warned that “arresting people out of a courtroom will lead to a breakdown of civil society.” 

At the end of April, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended Dugan with pay. Her case catalyzed protests outside the Milwaukee FBI Office, and was repeatedly mentioned at the summer’s No Kings protests. In July, Republican lawmakers introduced a bill to withhold pay for suspended judges. 

“In these rare circumstances, these judges’ actions and alleged misconduct rose to such a level that suspension was warranted,” the bill’s authors, Sen. Cory Tomczyk (R-Mosinee), Assembly Majority Leader Tyler August (R-Walworth) and Rep. Shae Sortwell (R-Two Rivers) wrote in a memo.  “Simply put, Wisconsin taxpayers must be protected from the misconduct and/or commission of a crime by rogue judges.”

If convicted, Dugan, who has pleaded not guilty, faces six years in prison. Her legal team initially attempted to have the case thrown out,  t arguing that Dugan is covered by  judicial immunity. That argument was rejected by U.S. Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph of the Eastern District of Wisconsin, who wrote that judges have civil immunity for official actions, but not criminal immunity, and that the case should go forward.

“As she said after her unnecessary arrest, Judge Dugan asserts her innocence and looks forward to being vindicated in court,” Dugan’s defense attorneys said in a statement.

On Thursday night, a crowd gathered outside the federal courthouse to support Dugan. 

Therese Heeg, 66, told the Wisconsin Examiner that she felt a responsibility to attend the rally to “protect our democracy for my children, my grandchildren, my son-in-law who’s unable to live in the U.S. because he’s from Africa, my best friend’s children who are Hispanic who are afraid for their lives, even though they’re citizens.” Heeg said she’s worried about immigration enforcement coming to the city to take people away. “Every single day there’s more and more atrocities happening right here,” said Heeg. “We are trapping people in camps…I used to wonder what it was like to live under the Nazis, and now I know, I’m living it. It’s shocking, it’s hard to comprehend at the same time that it’s happening every single day. 

Jury selection on Thursday was  closed off from the public and media by U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, who is hearing the case. Adelman was responding to concerns from both the prosecution and defense that public questioning would taint the jury. An audio feed allowing media to listen to the jury selection process was restored following a legal   challenge by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Sister Barbara Pfarr, who is among the leaders of the faith-based social justice group MICAH, said that the national attention on Dugan’s case shows that the judge struck a nerve by standing up to the  Trump administration. Pfarr was disturbed by the effort to restrict press access during jury selection, and wondered whether anything similar would happen during the trial. “That’s the other big reason that I’m here, we’ve lost our democracy.”

Milwaukee County Sheriff Denita Ball (right) sits beside Chief Deputy Brian Barkow (left) during a meeting of the Milwaukee County Board. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Dozens of people filled a room in Milwaukee’s courthouse complex Tuesday morning, listening as representatives from the sheriff’s office pushed for adopting facial recognition technology and answered questions about the Flock camera system. The Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office hopes to equip its booking room cameras with facial recognition software from the company Biometrica, a move that was not well received by some county residents.

For over an hour, Chief Deputy Brian Barkow and other sheriff’s office staff attempted to quell residents’ fears. During the Tuesday meeting of the Committee on Judiciary, Law Enforcement and General Services, board members listened to a lengthy presentation from the sheriff’s office differentiating various camera systems, and highlighting aspects of a proposed policy governing facial recognition technology. 

In June, the county board unanimously voted to call on the sheriff’s office  to work with community members to create such a policy. Residents had increasingly expressed concern after the Milwaukee Police Department signaled that it was exploring an agreement with Biomentrica to provide 2.5 million images, booking records and other information in exchange for access to facial recognition software. As concerns mounted about  the police department contract, the public learned that the county sheriff’s office  was also exploring a similar agreement with Biometrica. 

During the Tuesday committee meeting, Barkow ran through the various camera systems the sheriff’s office uses. From Genetec, a video management platform that can detect motion and loitering, to general purpose security cameras used from the zoo to the courthouse, cameras installed in police vehicles, camera trailers, body cameras, and AI-powered Flock cameras used to identify vehicle license plates. 

A sprawling network of Flock cameras has been erected by over 5,000 law enforcement agencies nationwide, including at least 221 in Wisconsin. The cameras perpetually photograph and identify vehicles using license plates, storing that data for a period of time and allowing law enforcement to search Flock’s network for that data. The cameras can be set up to notify officers of when specific vehicles are spotted, sending more notifications as they pass Flock cameras installed in one neighborhood or another.

Barkow and Sheriff Denita Ball said that saying that this practice amounts to “tracking” is a misrepresentation. “When you say ‘tracking’,” Barkow told the Wisconsin Examiner, “most people think of I’m like, live tracking you. And so an alert occurs, right, but it occurs after that vehicle has already been someplace.” Ball underscored the point. “What it says is the car is here at this time,” said Ball. “Now because it has alerted the police officer, the deputy sheriff, what they’re going to do now is follow that car.” Barkow added in such situations a deputy could “respond to that area to attempt to locate the vehicle.” It may then pass in front of another Flock camera at some point, or it may not, Barkow added. 

None of these systems use facial recognition software, Barkow and other sheriff’s office  staff said. Rather, the sheriff’s office sees its booking room cameras — used to photograph people during the intake process at the jail — as good candidates for Biometrica’s software. A PowerPoint presentation produced by the sheriff’s office states that these cameras can capture high-quality images of scars, marks, tattoos, and other distinctive characteristics. 

The presentation states that the sheriff’s office  is evaluating how facial recognition could be used to compare booking images against law enforcement databases. No biometric information or data would be accessed, stored, or transmitted, the PowerPoint stated, and all searches would be both private and logged, nor would the data be sold to third parties. 

Facial recognition software could be used to identify people linked to active investigations, missing persons, witnesses, victims, mitigating “imminent threats” like terrorism and violence, and assisting forensic processes. Sheriff’s office staff would be prohibited from using it for mass surveillance or indiscriminate tracking, automated real-time identification without human oversight, targeting people based on race, gender, religion, or other protected traits, or relying on facial recognition as the sole reason for an arrest or for pursuing a search warrant. 

Committee members peppered Barkow and company with a variety of questions. They raised concerns about the adoption of surveillance technologies in the current political climate, particularly when it comes to actions by the Trump administration. There were questions about whether agencies like immigration enforcement could access the accumulated data of Flock or facial recognition cameras, and who exactly in the sheriff’s  chain of command would be making decisions about how the technology is used and who accesses it. Some expressed concerns that facial recognition has been shown to have higher failure rates for non-white faces. Sheriff’s office staff  and representatives from Biometrica countered that although early models of the technology did have those issues, advancements have all but eliminated those concerns, though no specific improved detection rates were provided. 

Sup. Justin Bielinski, who chairs the committee, set a strict two-minute limit on speaking time because of the large volume of people waiting to comment

Calling Sheriff Ball a “liar” who had failed to respond to community concerns about the jail, Ron Jansen, the first member of the public to speak, said, “this department cannot be given additional power, period.” Jansen said that sheriff’s office  staff could run screenshots through facial recognition software applications, or request other law enforcement agencies to do it for them. Jansen pushed back against the sheriff’s claims that running a photo through facial recognition technology is similar to putting a picture out in the news. “Great!” Said Jansen. “I would encourage them not to waste our money on [facial recognition] technology and instead to continue running photos in the news, and asking for public support. It’s cheaper and probably a lot more effective.” 

One person after another  expressed doubts about the Milwaukee sheriff’s  push to adopt facial recognition technology, and also questioned the use of Flock cameras. Several referred to a recent scandal involving the Greenfield police chief, who is facing felony charges after having a department-owned pole camera installed at his home to monitor his wife during a messy divorce. Others compared the capabilities of Flock and facial recognition technology to World War II-era European countries where secret police photographed and identified targeted individuals. 

Many, including members of the committee, echoed fears about federal agencies accessing the data collected by the Milwaukee sheriff’s tools. “I haven’t heard one community member today say that they support this,” said Angela Lang, executive director of Black Leaders Organizing Communities (BLOC). “All of the folks that we have been talking to in the community say if we actually want to get to the root causes of crime, we invest in things like mental health and health care and affordable housing.”

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development headquarters. (Photo by HUD Office of Public Affairs)

Update: On Monday, Dec. 8, the federal government withdrew the funding notice cutting Continuum of Care funds.

A proposed budget from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that cuts funds which have meant the difference between shelter and homelessness for about 170,000 people nationwide has left communities scrambling. In Wisconsin, the cuts are projected to cause the loss of permanent housing for 2,379 people according to a report by the National Alliance to End Homelessness. The loss of funds would hit early in the new year, leaving local governments to absorb the fallout in the middle of winter. 

Korey Lundin, senior staff attorney at the National Housing Law Project and former staff attorney with Legal Action of Wisconsin, told the Wisconsin Examiner that the grants that HUD cut —  known as Continuum of Care (CoC) funds — “help thousands of people. That includes folks who have been recently unhoused.” In Wisconsin, 52% of permanent housing funding is covered by the CoC program. 

The people the CoC program serves, Ludin said, include “families, children, seniors, veterans, those who are survivors of domestic violence,” and others who are “not just the stereotypical image that people get when they think of a homeless person.”

In Milwaukee County, over $12 million in CoC funds covers direct rent payments to help provide housing for vulnerable county residents. The investments help support thousands of people across more than 20 housing programs. 

CoC funding in Milwaukee County supports housing for:

• over 770 children;
• 154 young adults between 18 and 24 years old, 
• 560 working-age residents from 25 to 44 years old, 
• 590 people between the ages of 45 to 64,
• 826 people with no income at all, 
• 347 who earn only $500-$1000 a month,
• 1,049 people diagnosed with mental health disorders,
• 321 people with physical disabilities,
• 123 with co-occurring substance use disorders,
• 549 people who’ve remained in housing for over five years,
• and 610 people who’ve maintained housing for 1 to 2 years. 

HUD has also proposed capping permanent housing support at 30%. In Milwaukee County 89% of CoC funds are dedicated to permanent housing beds. The picture isn’t much different for Dane County (where 78% of CoC funding goes to permanent beds), or Racine County (where 80% of CoC funding supports permanent beds). 

HUD announced the cuts saying they will help fulfill President Donald Trump’s “Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets” executive order. HUD claimed that cutting support for permanent housing beds across the country will restore “accountability to homelessness programs” while promoting “self-sufficiency among vulnerable Americans.” 

The Trump administration has been criticized for policies that essentially criminalize homelessness, jailing and displacing unhoused people in an effort to beautify cities. Lundin sees the HUD cuts as part of that effort. He told the Wisconsin Examiner, “They want to round up and warehouse the unhoused. They want to incarcerate the unhoused. The solutions they’re talking about are solutions that exacerbate homelessness.”

HUD Secretary Scott Turner has said that restricting and cutting permanent bed funding is “ending the status quo that perpetuated homelessness through a self-sustaining slush fund.” In a press release announcing the cuts, HUD criticized “the failed ‘Housing First’ ideology, which encourages dependence on endless government handouts while neglecting to address the root causes of homelessness, including illicit drugs and mental illnesses.”

Housing First is an approach to addressing homelessness that prioritizes placing individuals in permanent and stable housing. One 2022 study — which noted that chronic homelessness in the U.S. costs up to $3.4 billion — found that the economic benefits of implementing Housing First programs outweigh the costs of the programs. In 2023, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs published a research brief highlighting that “strong evidence exists that the Housing First model leads to quicker exits from homelessness and greater housing stability over time compared with treatment as usual.” It also stated that studies on the Housing First Model — four of which were reviewed to compile the research brief — show that the model “results in greater improvements in housing outcomes for homeless adult populations in North America.” 

Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, who credits the county’s Housing First approach for a sharp reduction in homelessness, told the Examiner, “I am deeply concerned about the Trump administration’s move to slash permanent housing funding. This decision will destabilize housing for people across the country and it threatens the real progress we have made in Milwaukee County through our Housing First program.” Crowley noted that Milwaukee County has been recognized for having the lowest number of unsheltered homeless residents count per capita in the country, “and we are looked at as a national leader in this space. As someone who knows what housing insecurity feels like, I will pull every lever I can to protect working families and expand access to permanent housing so we can keep our state moving forward.” 

Especially in the winter, the HUD cuts could have troubling consequences. “We don’t have any state protection that prohibits people from being evicted in winter,” said Lundin, who lives in Wisconsin. “If this goes through it would be happening in the worst time here in Wisconsin in the middle of the winter.” 

Lawsuits are already being filed by cities, states and nonprofits. Lundin also said that Congress could intervene by appropriating funding for the HUD programs the administration plans to cut in 2026. In a statement to the Examiner, U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Milwaukee) called CoC funding and homeless programs “vital to many organizations in Wisconsin and in Milwaukee who help the unhoused and keep people housed.” 

Moore said in the statement, “as per usual with this administration, it is the most vulnerable, like domestic violence survivors and LGBTQ youth, who would be hit the hardest. The Trump Administration’s proposal disregards Congress’s intent and would be catastrophic, putting 170,000 Americans at risk of homelessness. I am pleased to have joined my colleagues on several letters opposing these changes. House and Senate Members on both sides of the aisle have also pushed back because they recognize what it would do: Move us backward in the fight to end homelessness.”

Advocates are urging members of Congress to support a final HUD spending bill that increases funding for housing vouchers and protects CoC funds for permanent housing. The House and Senate version of a bill to fund HUD’s affordable housing, community development, and homelessness services programs differ by billions of dollars as the two chambers work to hammer out a year-end spending deal. 

A drone watching a protest. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

“It is a unique bill that has a lot of emotion and nuances to it,” said Rep. Chuck Wichgers (R-Muskego), describing a bill to give local law enforcement the power to disable or destroy drones. Speaking to the Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety on Wednesday, Wichgers said that the bill would give “the bare minimum protection” for both the public and police as global drone technology continues to rapidly evolve.

Although current state law prohibits the use of weaponized drones, the devices are not actually defined in statute. Wichgers’ bill would define a weaponized drone as one which “is equipped with a taster, firearm, flamethrower, chemical, or explosive device.” 

Wichgers cautioned that “we can easily complicate this bill,” especially given the growth of drone technology around the world. Over the last two decades, drones have gone from being scarcely heard of outside military settings to becoming household objects. The U.S. military’s infamous Reaper and Predator drones, some of which are the size of small planes, have long been used in combat for reconnaissance and lethal strikes. Today, however, the same small and cheap quad-copter drones used by photographers, landscapers and children are being outfitted with explosives for kamikaze-style attacks on armored vehicles on Russian and Ukrainian battlefields, where an estimated 70-80% of casualties are caused by drones.

“It’s beyond fascinating,” Wichgers  said of “this is a big and global issue.” Wichgers told committee members that “we need to start getting language in statute,” since only certain federal agencies currently have the authority to down weaponized drones. “This bill allows Wisconsin law enforcement to mitigate a threat posed by a weaponized drone by detecting, tracking and identifying the drone and then intercepting, disabling, or in a worst case scenario, destroying the drone.” 

In order to protect public safety,  Wichgers said  that “these powers should be extended to local law enforcement.” He added that the federal government provides grants to help mitigate drone threats, as well as $500 million set aside for fiscal year 2026-27, as part of the Trump administration’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” “The difficulty is that law enforcement should not have to waiver if there is an immediate threat for a drone that is weaponized or carrying a load that is harmful to the public,” said Wichgers. “Our airspace needs to be safe, just like we’re safe on our roads.” 

A quickly moving goalpost 

The bill was requested by the Police Chief Association of Waukesha County, Wichgers said. “State law must be enacted that is responsive to current and future needs as best as we can determine them in order to prevent harm and protect our communities,” he added. 

Committee members chimed in with a variety of questions. Rep. Shae Sortwell (R-Two Rivers) joked about farmers using weaponized drones to eliminate sandhill cranes consuming crops. Wichgers brought up  his own examples, including nervous neighbors calling the police to check out roofers who might be using drones for survey work, or a drone being used at a concert to drop fentanyl on people who then overdose in the crowd. “Right now the police would say, ‘Sorry, the Wisconsin Legislature is dragging their feet on passing a law that gives me permission to disarm that drone that’s a threat, we’ll have to wait till next session,” said Wichgers. 

Dan Thompson, chief of the Waukesha Police Department, told the committee,  that “drones carry contraband, surveillance equipment or worse, weaponized payloads” and that the technology can “present a unique danger that demands an immediate intervention.” 

The chief’s comments prompted Rep. David Steffen (R-Howard) to seek clarification that under the proposed bill a drone does not, in fact, need to be weaponized, and that law enforcement only need to “reasonably suspect” that it could pose a public safety threat in order to shoot it down. Sortwell said that the bill’s language seemed broad. 

Sortwell questioned whether as the bill is written, shooting down a drone could be justified at any time. Legislative counsel said, “I don’t know that I can really answer that.” Sortwell shot back, “The fact that you can’t say ‘no’ is troubling.”

The Waukesha County Sheriff Department. An audit of the department's use of data from the Flock surveillance camera system shows inconsistent reporting the reasons on the reasons investigators access the information, a problem common among police agencies. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Like other Wisconsin law enforcement agencies, the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department (WCSD) uses Flock cameras for many reasons, though department personnel don’t always clearly document what those reasons are. Audit data reveals that staff most frequently entered “investigation” in order to access Flock’s network, while other documented uses are raising concerns among privacy advocates. 

Flock cameras perpetually photograph and, using AI-powered license plate reader technology, identify vehicles traversing roadways. Flock’s system can be used to view a vehicle’s journey, even weeks after capturing an image, or flag specific vehicles for law enforcement which have been placed on “Be On The Lookout” (BOLO) lists.

As of March 2025, the company Flock Safety was valued at $7.5 billion, with over 5,000 law enforcement agencies using its cameras nationwide. At least  221 of those agencies are in Wisconsin, including the city of Waukesha’s police department as well as  the county sheriff . The Wisconsin Examiner obtained Flock audit data from the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department through open records requests, covering Flock searches from January 2024 to July 2025, and used computer programming to analyze the data.

Over that period of time, more than 6,700 Flock searches were conducted by WCSD using only “investigation”, as well as abbreviations or misspellings of the word. The searches, as they appeared in the audit data, offered no other context to suggest why specifically Flock’s network had been searched. Lt. Nicholas Wenzel, a sheriff’s department spokesperson, wrote in an email statement that “investigation” has a broad usage when Flock is involved. 

“A deputy/detective using Flock for an investigation is using it for a wide range of public safety situations,” Wenzel explained. “Flock assists in locating missing persons during Amber or Silver Alert by identifying their vehicles and has proven effective in recovering stolen cars. Investigators use Flock to track suspect vehicles in serious crimes such as homicides, assaults, robberies, and shootings, as well as in property crimes like burglaries, catalytic converter thefts, and package thefts. The system also supports traffic-related investigations, including hit-and-run cases, and enables agencies to share information across jurisdictions to track offenders who travel between communities.”

Widespread use of vague search terms 

Dave Maass, director of investigations at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says that terms like “investigation” are too vague to determine whether or not Flock was used appropriately.  At least some responsibility falls on Flock Safety itself, Maass argues. “They’re setting up a system where it’s impossible for somebody to audit it,” he told the Wisconsin Examiner. “And I think that’s the big problem, is that there’s no baseline requirement that you have to have a case related to this…They say you have to have a law enforcement purpose. But if you just put the word ‘investigation’ there, how do you know? Like, how do you know that this is not somebody stalking their ex-partner? How do you know whether this is somebody looking up information about celebrities? How do you know whether it’s racist or not? And you just don’t, because nobody is checking any of these things.”

The audit also stored other vague search terms used by WCSD such as “f”, “cooch”, “freddy”, “ts”, “nathan”, and “hunt” which Lt. Wenzel would not define.“The search terms are associated with investigations, some of which remain active,” he wrote in an email statement. “To preserve the integrity of these ongoing investigations, no further description or clarification of the terms can be provided at this time.” 

In August, Wisconsin Examiner published a similar Flock analysis that also found agencies statewide entering only the word “investigation,” with no other descriptor, in order to access Flock. At nearly 20,000 searches (not including misspellings and abbreviations), the term “investigation” was in fact the most often used term in that analysis, which relied on audit data obtained from the Wauwatosa Police Department. 

While data from the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department appeared in that first Flock story, that analysis focused on broad trends which appeared among at least 221 unique agencies using Flock in Wisconsin. This more recent analysis focuses specifically on the Waukesha County Sheriff Department’s use of the camera network. 

The August report found that the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department appeared among the top 10 Wisconsin law enforcement agencies that used Flock the most. The report also found that some agencies also only entered “.” — a period — in the Flock system field to indicate the reason for using the system. The West Allis Police Department led Wisconsin in this particular search term, followed by the Waukesha Police Department and the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office. 

In response to an inquiry from the Wisconsin Examiner, a Waukesha Police Department spokesperson  said that an officer who’d conducted nearly 400 Flock searches using only “.” as the reason had been provided extra training, and that the officer’s behavior had been corrected after the Wisconsin Examiner reached out. The West Allis Police Department,  on the other hand, did not suggest that its officers were using the Flock network improperly. 

Use of vague search terms is chronic across Flock’s network, Maass has found. He recalled  one nationwide audit that covered 11.4 million Flock searches over a six-month period. Of those some 22,743 “just dots” appeared as reasons for Flock searches. Searches using only the word “investigation” made up about 14.5% of all searches, he said. 

“So yeah, that’s a problem,” Maass told the Wisconsin Examiner. Reviewing a copy of Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department audit data, Maass saw the same vague search terms that have been reported by the Examiner. Although some terms can be reasonably guessed — such as “repo” perhaps meaning repossession, or ICAC, which usually stands for Internet Crimes Against Children — others aren’t so easy. 

“‘Hunt’ can mean anything,” said Maass, referring to a term which appeared 24 times within the Waukesha Sheriff’s data. Maass points to the search term “f”, which the Wisconsin Examiner’s analysis found WCSD used to search Flock 806 times. 

Maass highlights that each search touches hundreds or even thousands of individual Flock networks nationwide. “If I’m one of these agencies that gets hit by this system, how am I to know if this is a legitimate search or not?” Maass said. “Now, maybe somebody at Waukesha is going through their own system, and like questioning every officer about every case. Maybe they’re doing that. Probably not.” 

Wenzel of the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department said that although some searches appear vague,  deputies and detectives are required by department policy to document their use of Flock in reports. Although a case number category does appear in the audit data, this column was rendered blank, making it impossible for Wisconsin Examiner to determine how often Flock searches had case numbers, or whether those case numbers corresponded with specific investigations the sheriff’s department had on file. 

“The Sheriff’s Office understands the concerns surrounding emerging technology and takes very seriously its responsibility to protect the privacy and civil rights of the community,” Wenzel said in a statement. “The use of Flock license plate recognition technology is guided by clear safeguards to ensure it is only used for legitimate law enforcement purposes.” 

The department’s policy, Wenzel explained, “prohibits any use outside of legitimate criminal investigations.” He said that deputies undergo initial and ongoing training to use the camera network. “All system activity is logged and subject to review,” said Wenzel.

Maass says the department can’t back-check the searches conducted by other agencies using the Waukesha Flock network, however. “Because when we’re talking about millions of searches coming through their system, you know, every few months…like hundreds of thousands at least every month…how are they actually quality controlling any of these?” Maass told the Wisconsin Examiner. “They’re just not.”

Wenzel said that “the technology is not used for general surveillance, traffic enforcement, or monitoring individuals not connected to an investigation.” The Wisconsin Examiner’s analysis, however, detected 43 searches logged as “surveillance” and 30 searches logged as “traffic offense.” The audit data also contained at least 357 searches logged as “suspicious” or variations of the word, as well as another 14 logged as “suspicious driving behavior,” 52 searches for “road rage” and 36 logged as “identify driver”.

There were also 62 searches related to evictions, which privacy advocates contend  go beyond the public safety roles that the cameras were originally pitched to serve.

“Evictions can be unpredictable and potentially dangerous situations,” said Wenzel. “The removal of individuals from a residence often creates heightened emotions, uncertainty, and sometimes resistance. For this reason, safety is the top priority for both the residents being evicted and the deputies carrying out the court order. Flock is utilized to determine if the former tenants have left the area or could possibly be in the area when the court order is being carried out.” 

Jon McCray Jones, policy analyst for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin, said in a statement that the Waukesha Sheriff’s use of Flock has extended “far beyond the public safety justifications for which these tools were originally sold.” McCray Jones told the Wisconsin Examiner, “These systems were introduced to the public as a means to reduce violent crime and aid in solving serious investigations. However, when they are used for non-criminal purposes, such as evictions, they cross a dangerous line.”  

Waukesha’s uses for evictions were particularly concerning for McCray Jones. “What’s happening here is surveillance technology, operated by taxpayer-funded public servants, being weaponized at the behest of private landlords and corporations,” he said. “That is exactly the kind of mission creep communities are most worried about when it comes to police surveillance. If Flock cameras can be repurposed to target tenants today, what stops law enforcement tomorrow from using facial recognition to track people who fall behind on rent, or phone location data to monitor whether workers are ‘really sick’ when they call off? We’ve seen documented cases where law enforcement misused surveillance systems to track down romantic interests. Once the floodgate is opened, the slide into abuse is fast and quiet.” 

Wenzel said that access to the Flock network is limited to personnel who are properly trained and authorized to use the software, and the department’s policy is regularly reviewed by those personnel. 

“Searches are limited to legitimate law enforcement purposes per department policy,” he wrote in an email statement. The department has conducted its own Flock audits, Wenzel explained, and no sheriff department staff have ever been disciplined or re-trained due to Flock-related issues. Although the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department is part of the federal 287(g) program, in which local law enforcement agencies participate in federal immigration enforcement, Wenzel said that Flock is not used as part of the program, and the Wisconsin Examiner didn’t find any clear examples of immigration-related uses by the sheriff’s department. 

McCray Jones considers the Waukesha Sheriff’s use of Flock to be an example of why “surveillance technology in the hands of law enforcement must be tightly limited, narrowly defined, and rigorously transparent.” He stressed that every use “must be clearly logged and justified — not with vague categories like ‘investigation’ or ‘repo’, but with meaningful explanations the public can actually understand and evaluate. Without strict guardrails, audits like this reveal how quickly tools justified in the name of ‘safety’ turn into instruments of convenience or even private gain.” 

With the growth of surveillance technologies and the civil liberties implications they raise, McCray Jones said that the public “deserves clear proof that it is being used only to reduce crime — particularly violent crime — and not to serve the interests of landlords or corporations. Accountability and transparency aren’t optional add-ons; they are the bare minimum to prevent abuse.”