Federal judge with history of anti-Trump remarks assigned to Hannah Dugan criminal case

Fox News

20-05-2025

The Milwaukee judge accused of helping an illegal immigrant evade Immigration and Customs Enforcement is back in the spotlight — this time because of the liberal federal judge presiding over her trial.
U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, 85, was randomly assigned to preside over the jury trial of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan, who was indicted earlier this month for allegedly shielding an illegal immigrant from ICE in her courtroom. Adelman, a former Democratic lawmaker and outspoken judge, faces mounting criticism and scrutiny of his record as he handles the high-profile case.
Adelman spent 20 years as a Democrat in the Wisconsin state Senate before then-President Bill Clinton nominated him in 1997 to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
Though the judge hasn't been active in politics for years, critics note recent rulings and writings in which he's taken aim at President Donald Trump, Chief Justice Roberts and others.
Some fear this continued political bias could risk his impartiality in presiding over Dugan's trial — or at least the perceptions of it, in the eyes of Trump allies. Adelman did not respond to a request for comment.
In 2020, Adelman published an article for Harvard Law & Policy Review, titled, "The Roberts Court's Assault on Democracy" that set off a torrent of criticism from Trump allies and court commentators alike.
The article accused Chief Justice John Roberts of breaking with his Senate confirmation testimony in 2005 — instead ushering in a "hard-right majority" on the Supreme Court, and "actively participating in undermining American democracy."
Adelman also took aim at Trump, whose temperament he said "is that of an autocrat," but who he said "is also disinclined to buck the wealthy individuals and corporations who control his party."
Adelman used the article to advocate for "righting the ship" of the high court, in part by embracing an approach similar to the Warren Court — known both for its landmark civil rights rulings and a slew of other progressive decisions.
Adelman was later admonished by the Civility Committee for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals for his remarks in the article.
They found his remarks did not violate prohibited political activity under the Canons of Judicial Conduct, but issued the following rebuke:
"The opening two sentences regarding the Chief Justice and the very pointed criticisms of Republican Party policy positions could be seen as inconsistent with a judge's duty to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and as reflecting adversely on the judge's impartiality," the committee said.
Adelman later issued a public apology for those remarks.
Adelman was also at the center of a major case involving Wisconsin's voter ID law, which sought to make it harder for citizens to vote.
He blocked the law from taking force ahead of the elections — a decision that was later reversed by the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which again issued a sharp rebuke of his ruling.
In "our hierarchical judicial system, a district court cannot declare a statute unconstitutional just because he thinks (with or without the support of a political scientist) that the dissent was right and the majority wrong," the appeals court said, noting that Adelman did not rely on any Supreme Court precedent to base his decision.
In light of his previous remarks and progressive rulings, court-watchers expect his behavior here to be closely scrutinized.
It's unclear whether his behavior could assuage the concerns of longtime critics — among them, Mike Davis of the Article III Project, and conservative scholar Josh Blackman, who took aim at Adelman's 2020 remarks in a blog post at the time.
This is due in part to the canons of judicial ethics, Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley noted in an op-ed for The Hill.
"Because of these ethical principles, judges are usually highly restrained in their public comments, particularly about political or ideological matters," he said.
Dugan's trial comes at a time when Trump and his allies have blasted so-called "activist" judges who they see as acting politically to block his agenda — suggesting her trial, and Adelman's behavior — will be under especially close scrutiny.
But others noted that federal judges often take great caution to avoid the appearance of political bias, even more so in public remarks, understanding that doing so could violate the canons for judicial behavior.
Many also see their roles on the court as a serious job that requires them to be impartial arbiters of the law — looking to precedent, rather than politics — as their guide.
In presiding over Dugan's case, experts hope Adelman will do the same.
"When I have served on panels with sitting federal judges, they often balk at even discussing the scope of constitutional rights out of concern for these canons," Turley noted in the an op-ed. "Federal judges are expected to speak through opinions in court decisions rather than in editorials or law review articles."