Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan, who has been hailed as a hero in the courtroom by Democratic lawmakers and portrayed as a victim of the Trump administration, is facing federal charges.
Dugan was indicted by a federal grand jury in May for allegedly assisting Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, in evading U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Flores-Ruiz was facing three misdemeanor counts of battery.
According to The Blaze, Dugan's actions, which were largely captured on courthouse cameras, occurred on April 18. The Milwaukee judge believed that a Supreme Court ruling, which was heavily criticized by Democrats last summer, would be her saving grace. However, a federal judge has suggested otherwise this week.
In a bid to avoid prosecution, Dugan's lawyers cited the court's decision that the president "may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts."
They argued in a May 14 motion to dismiss the case that "the government cannot prosecute Judge Dugan because she is entitled to judicial immunity for her official acts." They further suggested that Dugan's prosecution infringes on the limits of federal power under the 10th Amendment.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph, however, recommended on Monday that Dugan's motion to dismiss be denied. She systematically dismantled the Milwaukee judge's arguments for dismissal. "It is well-established and undisputed that judges have absolute immunity from civil lawsuits for monetary damages when engaging in judicial acts," wrote Joseph. "This, however, is not a civil case. And review of the case law does not show an extension of this established doctrine to the criminal context."
Joseph further questioned whether judicial immunity could protect Dugan from prosecution given that the indictment alleges she violated federal criminal law while performing judicial duties. She concluded that the answer is no. Joseph emphasized that there is "no firmly established absolute judicial immunity barring criminal prosecution of judges for judicial acts."
Joseph also dismissed Dugan's attempt to use to avoid criminal prosecution for alleged misconduct within her courtroom. "While Dugan asserts that simply extended to the president the same immunity from prosecution that judges already have, this argument makes a leap too far. says nothing about criminal immunity for judicial acts," wrote Joseph.
The U.S. magistrate judge also recommended that the court declines Dugan's request to dismiss the indictment on the canon of constitutional avoidance. However, the final decision rests with U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, a Clinton-appointed U.S. district judge and former Democratic state senator known for his criticism of President Donald Trump.
Dugan, who was relieved of her duties as a judge in April by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, was initially scheduled to go to trial later this month. However, Adelman removed the trial date from the calendar last month pending the outcome of her motion to dismiss.
Reacting to the magistrate judge's recommendation, Dugan's attorney Steven Biskupic expressed disappointment. "We are disappointed in the magistrate judge's non-binding recommendation, and we will appeal it," he said in a statement obtained by the Associated Press. "This is only one step in what we expect will be a long journey to preserve the independence and integrity of our courts."
The case of Judge Dugan raises questions about the extent of judicial immunity and the balance of power between federal and state jurisdictions. It also underscores the ongoing debate about the role of the judiciary in immigration enforcement, a topic that continues to divide conservatives and liberals.
Login