Wisconsin High Court Suspends Milwaukee Judge Accused of Aiding Illegal Immigrant
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has temporarily suspended Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Kristy Yang, after damning allegations surfaced that she helped a man avoid deportation by U.S. immigration authorities. The high court issued the suspension on April 25, following a recommendation from the Wisconsin Judicial Commission, which cited “serious misconduct” involving Judge Yang’s interaction with a defendant subject to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer.
The allegations center around a courtroom incident in 2023 in which Yang allegedly permitted a criminal defendant, whom ICE had flagged as unlawfully present in the United States, to exit her courtroom through a restricted area to avoid detention by immigration agents waiting outside.
According to the complaint, Judge Yang knowingly instructed a bailiff to escort the man out of a non-public exit. This move allegedly prevented ICE agents from executing a lawful detainer request. The Judicial Commission’s findings described the action as “an abuse of judicial authority” and “a deliberate effort to subvert federal immigration enforcement.”
BREAKING: The Wisconsin Supreme Court has just temporarily suspended Judge Hannah Dugan’s judicial powers. Dugan was arrested by the FBI for obstructing a federal ICE arrest of an illegal who was in her courtroom facing charges of domestic violence. pic.twitter.com/B0OGF3esQc
— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) April 29, 2025
Wisconsin’s conservative majority Supreme Court wasted no time in acting on the recommendation, issuing a 5-2 ruling that suspended Yang without pay pending the outcome of formal disciplinary proceedings. The court stated that her conduct, if proven true, “erodes public confidence in the judiciary and undermines the rule of law.”
Judge Yang has denied the allegations, claiming that her actions were misinterpreted and insisting that she had no intent to interfere with federal immigration enforcement. Her legal counsel argued that the matter has been exaggerated for political reasons, but the court found the accusations serious enough to warrant immediate suspension.
Conservative voices across the state, including many in the legal and law enforcement communities, applauded the decision, calling it a necessary move to preserve judicial integrity. “This was not a clerical error or misunderstanding. This was a calculated act of defiance against immigration laws,” said one former Wisconsin prosecutor. “If we can’t trust judges to uphold the law, we risk chaos in the courtroom.”
Many critics argue that Yang’s alleged actions reflect a troubling pattern among progressive judges who prioritize ideology over lawful duty. Conservative commentators noted that the incident is a glaring example of activist judges undermining national immigration policy under the guise of compassion.
“This is what happens when the bench is politicized,” said one local legal analyst. “Helping an illegal immigrant escape through a judge-only exit isn’t compassion—it’s obstruction. Judges should never act as shields for those violating federal law.”
The defendant at the center of the case had been charged with violent offenses. ICE had placed a detainer on him due to his unlawful status, and agents were reportedly waiting at the courthouse to take him into custody upon his court appearance. The bailiff’s testimony confirmed that Yang gave specific instructions to allow the man to leave via an employee-only hallway, bypassing ICE’s watch entirely.
Yang, first elected in 2017 with support from progressive groups, had been praised in left-wing circles as a rising star for diversity on the bench. However, this recent controversy has cast a long shadow over her judicial career, with even some moderate observers calling for a full ethics review and permanent removal if the allegations are substantiated.
Under state law, the Wisconsin Judicial Commission has the authority to investigate and recommend disciplinary action against judges. The Supreme Court ultimately determines the penalty, which can range from a public reprimand to removal from office. In Yang’s case, the Commission’s report was unequivocal in its condemnation of her actions, describing them as “prejudicial to the administration of justice.”
Conservative leaders have pointed to this case as further evidence of the need for stronger oversight and accountability mechanisms in the judiciary. Some are now advocating for mandatory cooperation between state courts and federal immigration agencies, especially in cases involving violent or repeat offenders.
Supporters of judicial accountability argue that the public deserves transparency and impartiality from the courts—not political activism. “No one is above the law, especially not judges,” said a spokesman for a Wisconsin legal watchdog group. “We need judges who respect the law, not twist it to fit a personal or political agenda.”
While Yang awaits a formal hearing, her courtroom remains vacant, and pending cases have been reassigned. The suspension marks the latest instance in a growing national debate over the intersection of local court systems and federal immigration enforcement. In recent years, several judges in liberal jurisdictions have faced scrutiny for similar actions, though few have been formally disciplined.
The Wisconsin case stands out because of the court’s swift and decisive response—an indication that tolerance for such conduct is diminishing in more law-abiding regions of the country.
The case also raises broader questions about judicial ethics and the boundaries of authority. Legal scholars have warned that when judges begin to view themselves as social justice agents rather than neutral arbiters of law, public trust in the judiciary suffers.
For many conservatives in Wisconsin and across the nation, the suspension of Judge Yang is a long-overdue course correction. They argue that the rule of law must prevail over partisan leanings, particularly in matters as serious as immigration enforcement and courtroom integrity.
As the disciplinary process moves forward, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments and possibly determine whether permanent removal is warranted. For now, Yang’s future on the bench hangs in the balance, and many are watching to see whether justice will be fully served.
