Judge Charged with Obstruction of Justice

Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan faced charges in May. The charge stems from allegations of obstructing justice related to an individual, Eduardo Flores Lewis, who is reported to be in the U.S. illegally and has been charged with multiple misdemeanor offenses.

Dugan had already been removed from her judicial position by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in April, but since then, she has sought to evade responsibility for her alleged actions.

Recently, a U.S. district judge appointed to handle her case provided an update on the charges. This news raised concerns regarding the accusations Dugan faces.

In a ruling related to a separate case, the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized the limits of judicial immunity, noting that while judges generally have protection from civil lawsuits for actions taken while performing their official duties, this immunity does not necessarily extend to criminal matters.

Judge Nancy Joseph, handling pre-trial proceedings, addressed arguments regarding Dugan’s firing and suggested that her attempts to dismiss the charges were unfounded.

Joseph stated, “There’s no well-established absolute judicial immunity for criminal prosecutions against judges performing their duties.” She explained that the Supreme Court hadn’t commented on such immunity regarding criminal law.

Ultimately, the decision on how to proceed with Joseph’s recommendations was left to District Judge Lynn Adelman. Though one might think Adelman might lean towards leniency, he agreed with Joseph’s recommendations and systematically countered Dugan’s arguments.

Despite implications that some charges could relate to her judicial functions, Adelman emphasized that immunity cannot be granted simply based on a judge’s role in managing cases.

In further discussions, Adelman dismissed Dugan’s claims that the prosecution infringed on the state’s rights, stating that pursuing action against a state judge wouldn’t undermine judicial authority or autonomy.

Additionally, significant attention was paid to the terminology Dugan highlighted in her motion to dismiss, specifically terms related to “corruption” and “procedural” aspects of her federal accusations.

The district judge has rejected her motion to dismiss and set a hearing for September 3rd. Dugan’s attorney expressed disappointment over this decision but emphasized the intention to fight the charges, asserting that Dugan merely handled the cases as any judge would.