Latest news with #LynnAdelman
Associated Press
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Associated Press
Judge recommends that case against Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan proceed
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A federal magistrate judge recommended Monday that the case proceed against a Wisconsin judge who was indicted on allegations that she helped a man who is in the country illegally evade U.S. immigration agents seeking to arrest him in her courthouse. Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan was arrested in April and indicted on federal charges in May. She pleaded not guilty. The case highlighted a clash between President Donald Trump's administration and local authorities over the Republican's sweeping immigration crackdown. Democrats have accused the Trump administration of trying to make a national example of Dugan to chill judicial opposition. Dugan filed a motion in May to dismiss the charges against her, saying she was acting in her official capacity as a judge and therefore is immune to prosecution. She argued that the federal government violated Wisconsin's sovereignty by disrupting a state courtroom and prosecuting a state judge. U.S. Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph on Monday recommended against dropping the charges. The ultimate decision is up to U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, who can accept the other judge's recommendation or reject it. 'We are disappointed in the magistrate judge's non-binding recommendation, and we will appeal it,' Dugan attorney Steven Biskupic, a former federal prosecutor, said in a statement. 'This is only one step in what we expect will be a long journey to preserve the independence and integrity of our courts.' Joseph wrote in her recommendation that while judges have immunity from civil lawsuits seeking monetary damages when engaging in judicial acts, that does not apply to criminal charges like those in this case. Joseph also rejected Dugan's other arguments in favor of dismissal. 'It is important to note that nothing said here speaks to the merits of the allegations against Dugan,' the judge said in the recommendation. 'Dugan is presumed innocent, and innocent she remains, unless and until the government proves the allegations against her beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury at trial.' No trial date has been set. Dugan is charged with concealing an individual to prevent arrest, a misdemeanor, and obstruction, which is a felony. Prosecutors say she escorted Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, 31, and his lawyer out of her courtroom through a back door on April 18 after learning that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were in the courthouse seeking to arrest him for being in the country without permanent legal status. Agents arrested Ruiz outside of the courthouse after a brief foot chase. Dugan could face up to six years in prison and a $350,000 fine if convicted on both counts. Her case is similar to one brought during the first Trump administration against a Massachusetts judge, who was accused of helping a man sneak out a courthouse back door to evade a waiting immigration enforcement agent. That case was eventually dismissed.
Fox News
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Federal judge with history of anti-Trump remarks assigned to Hannah Dugan criminal case
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."
CTV News
14-05-2025
- Politics
- CTV News
Wisconsin judge argues prosecutors can't charge her with helping a man evade immigration agents
MADISON, Wis. — A Wisconsin judge charged with helping a man who is in the country illegally evade U.S. immigration agents who were trying to detain him at her courthouse filed a motion to dismiss the case Wednesday, arguing that there's no legal basis for it. Attorneys for Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan argue in their motion that her conduct on the day in question amounted to directing people's movement in and around her courtroom, and that she enjoys legal immunity for official acts she performs as a judge. They cite last year's U.S. Supreme Court ruling in President Donald Trump's 2020 election interference case that found that former presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for official acts that fall within their 'exclusive sphere of constitutional authority' and are presumptively entitled to immunity for all official acts. 'The problems with the prosecution are legion, but most immediately, the government cannot prosecute Judge Dugan because she is entitled to judicial immunity for her official acts,' the motion says. 'Immunity is not a defense to the prosecution to be determined later by a jury or court; it is an absolute bar to the prosecution at the outset.' The judge overseeing her case is Lynn Adelman, a former Democratic state senator. Former President Bill Clinton appointed him to the bench in 1997. A spokesperson for the U.S. attorney's office in Milwaukee didn't immediately respond to an email seeking comment. Federal prosecutors charged Dugan in April with obstruction and concealing an individual to prevent arrest. A grand jury indicted her on the same charges on Tuesday. She faces up to six years in prison if convicted of both counts. Her attorneys insist Dugan is innocent. She's expected to enter a not guilty plea at her arraignment Thursday. Dugan's arrest has escalated a clash between the Trump administration and Democrats over the Republican president's sweeping immigration crackdown. Democrats contend that Dugan's arrest went too far and that the administration is trying to make an example out of her to discourage judicial opposition to the crackdown. Dugan's case is similar to one brought during the first Trump administration against a Massachusetts judge, who was accused of helping a man sneak out a courthouse back door to evade a waiting immigration enforcement agent. That case was eventually dismissed. According to prosecutors, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz illegally reentered the U.S. after being deported in 2013. He was charged in March with misdemeanor domestic violence in Milwaukee County and was in Dugan's courtroom for a hearing in that case on April 18. Dugan's clerk alerted her that immigration agents were in the courthouse looking to arrest Flores-Ruiz, prosecutors allege in court documents. According to an affidavit, Dugan became visibly angry at the agents' arrival and called the situation 'absurd.' After discussing the warrant for Flores-Ruiz's arrest with the agents, Dugan demanded that they speak with the chief judge and led them away from the courtroom. She then returned to the courtroom, was heard saying something to the effect of 'wait, come with me,' and then showed Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out a back door, the affidavit says. The immigration agents eventually detained Flores-Ruiz outside the building following a foot chase. 'The government's prosecution here reaches directly into a state courthouse, disrupting active proceedings, and interferes with the official duties of an elected judge,' Dugan's motion states. The state Supreme Court suspended Dugan from the bench last month, saying the move was necessary to preserve public confidence in the judiciary. A reserve judge is filling in for her. Todd Richmond, The Associated Press
