Charges Against Milwaukee Judge Dugan

Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan faced federal charges on Tuesday related to obstruction of justice. If convicted, she could serve up to six years in prison for allegedly aiding Eduardo Flores Luis, an unauthorized immigrant who has been charged with three misdemeanor battery offenses.

Her legal team seems to think that a recent Supreme Court ruling might help her evade responsibility.

The attorneys noted that, according to the court, “The government cannot prosecute Judge Dugan because she has judicial immunity for her official actions. Immunity cannot be used as a defense in prosecutions for later judicial decisions.”

They referenced a Supreme Court ruling from July 1, 2024, in the case of Trump vs. United States, where a majority determined that the president can’t be charged for exercising his core constitutional powers. He deserves some level of immunity for actions taken in an official capacity.

This situation has drawn attention among Democrats, while calls for accountability from conservatives continue. The judicial system is currently perceived as being overwhelmed by corruption.

Dugan’s defense asserts that her actions, even if they are contested, are part of her judicial duties, thus granting her immunity from criminal prosecution. They believe judges typically hold the authority to manage their courtrooms without interference.

“It’s unprecedented and absolutely unconstitutional,” her lawyer stated.

Next steps may involve an appeal against the allegations, which accuse her of obstructing federal agents. Specific claims include:

• Confronting members of the ICE Task Force and telling them a judicial warrant was necessary for their arrest.
• Instructing the task force to exit the courtroom through public halls.
• Interfering while ICE agents awaited in the Supreme Court.
• Advising the lawyers of Flores Luis that undocumented individuals could appear via video for upcoming hearings.

The Supreme Court emphasized in Trump vs. United States that separating civil servants from informal conduct means courts cannot investigate the motivations behind presidential actions, as such inquiries could unravel the integrity of governance.

Moreover, Dugan’s attorneys have argued that a judge’s personal motives have no bearing on their immunity.

The defense claims the prosecution against Dugan is remarkably unusual and fundamentally violates legal principles. They also reserve the right to pursue other claims related to her immunity, stressing the need for a swift resolution.

Judicial Watch’s president Tom Fitton commented, suggesting that correlation to the Supreme Court’s decision is misplaced in this context.

He contended that the government’s position clarifies that Dugan’s actions went beyond mere judicial duties and amounted to interference with federal law enforcement, emphasizing that this behavior constitutes obstruction of justice, which stands apart from her role as a judge.

Fitton further indicated that an appeal may be forthcoming to protect agents and public safety in light of these developments.

Dugan was relieved from her judicial responsibilities by the Wisconsin Supreme Court last month and is set to appear in court on July 9th. Her trial is reportedly scheduled for July 21st.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman will oversee Dugan’s case, which could prove advantageous for her as Democrats are likely to favor certain aspects of her situation.