> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.theamericanquorum.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Wisconsin Supreme Court Leaves Dugan’s Law License Active
- URL: https://www.theamericanquorum.com/state-news-wisconsin-2026-09-19-b/
- Published: 2026-09-19T15:45:13.000Z
- Updated: 2026-09-19T15:45:13.000Z
- Description: The Wisconsin Supreme Court declined to immediately suspend former Judge Hannah Dugan’s law license, leaving ordinary discipline and her federal appeal to proceed on separate tracks.
- Author: News Desk
- Tags: State News, Wisconsin

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has declined to immediately suspend former Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan’s law license, leaving her able to practice while the state’s ordinary lawyer-discipline process and her federal criminal appeal continue.

In a [two-page order issued September 16](https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/WICOURTS/2026/09/16/file%5Fattachments/3782660/2026XX001557%209-16-26%20CTO.pdf?ref=theamericanquorum.com), the court denied the Office of Lawyer Regulation’s request for a summary suspension. The majority said only that, after considering the regulator’s motion and Dugan’s response, an immediate suspension was “not warranted under the facts of this matter.” The order does not end the disciplinary case or decide what sanction, if any, should ultimately follow.

The distinction matters. A summary suspension is an interim measure, not a final disciplinary judgment. [Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule 22.20](https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/rules/chap22.pdf?ref=theamericanquorum.com) permits the justices to suspend a lawyer convicted of a serious crime while the underlying professional-discipline proceeding remains pending. The rule defines a serious crime to include a felony and says the court may act even if the conviction is on appeal. If the conviction is later reversed, the rule provides for prompt reinstatement.

Dugan was [convicted in December 2025 of impeding a federal proceeding](https://www.wpr.org/news/wisconsin-supreme-court-hannah-dugan-law-license-for-now?ref=theamericanquorum.com) after an encounter involving immigration agents at the Milwaukee County Courthouse. She resigned her judgeship in January. A federal judge sentenced her in July to a $5,000 fine and no prison time; Dugan is appealing the conviction. The lawyer-regulation office then asked the state Supreme Court to suspend her license before completion of the longer disciplinary process.

The September 16 order split the court 5-2\. Justices Brian Hagedorn and Annette Ziegler dissented. Ziegler wrote that the court has ordinarily used summary suspension to accelerate cases involving serious criminal convictions and argued that the circumstances justified doing so here. The majority did not answer that argument point by point, instead resting its decision on the discretion built into the rule.

For Wisconsin lawyers and the public, the practical result is narrow: Dugan’s license remains active for now, but the professional-conduct case is unresolved. [Reuters reported that the Office of Lawyer Regulation may continue through the standard disciplinary channel](https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/former-wisconsin-judge-convicted-immigration-case-keep-law-license-now-2026-09-16/?ref=theamericanquorum.com), which can include a formal complaint, fact-finding and a later recommendation to the Supreme Court.

The criminal appeal proceeds on a separate track. A successful appeal could affect the basis for discipline, but the state court’s present order neither predicts the appeal’s outcome nor clears Dugan of professional misconduct. Likewise, denial of an expedited suspension does not guarantee that her license will remain unchanged once the disciplinary record is complete.

The next meaningful developments will therefore come from one of two institutions: the federal appeals court reviewing Dugan’s conviction, or Wisconsin’s lawyer-regulation system advancing a formal disciplinary case. Until then, the Supreme Court has chosen to preserve the status quo rather than impose a temporary penalty.