Latest news with #judicialimmunity
CBS News
08-07-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Federal judge recommends case continue against Hannah Dugan
Washington — A federal magistrate judge said Monday that the Justice Department's criminal case against Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan should move forward and recommended that her bid to dismiss the indictment be denied. Dugan was arrested in April and charged with two federal counts after she was accused of helping a man who is in the U.S. illegally evade federal immigration authorities during a law enforcement operation at her courthouse in Milwaukee. She pleaded not guilty to one count of concealing an individual to prevent arrest, a misdemeanor, and one count of obstruction, a felony. Dugan has argued that the case against her should be dismissed on the grounds that she was acting within the scope of her official duties as a state court judge and is therefore entitled to judicial immunity. She also said that the federal prosecution violates Wisconsin's sovereignty by interfering with the duties of an elected state judge and disrupting active proceedings. In a filing seeking to dismiss the indictment, Dugan's lawyers called the government's prosecution "virtually unprecedented and entirely unconstitutional." But federal prosecutors said the charges should not be dropped and urged a federal judge to deny Dugan's bid to dismiss the case. They said Dugan's request for a dismissal is "unprecedented" and would ignore "well-established law that has long permitted judges to be prosecuted for crimes they commit." "Such a ruling would give state court judges carte blanche to interfere with valid law enforcement actions by federal agents in public hallways of a courthouse, and perhaps even beyond," they wrote in a filing last month. "Dugan's desired ruling would, in essence, say that judges are 'above the law,' and uniquely entitled to interfere with federal law enforcement." In a report filed Monday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph recommended that Dugan's attempt to dismiss the charges should be rejected. "It is well-established and undisputed that judges have absolute immunity from civil lawsuits for monetary damages when engaging in judicial acts," she wrote in a 37-page filing. "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 stressed, however, that her recommendations, which are non-binding, do not speak to the merits of the allegations against Dugan, who is presumed innocent until proven guilty. A jury trial before U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman was set to begin July 21, but has been delayed. In arguing that she should be shielded from federal prosecution, Dugan cited the Supreme Court's 2024 ruling in a case involving President Trump and the 2020 presidential election. The high court found that the president is immune from prosecution for official acts taken while in office. But Joseph wrote she is "unconvinced" that common law or the Supreme Court's decision in Mr. Trump's case "provide the authority for applying the civil framework of absolute judicial immunity for judicial acts to the prosecution of judges for crimes that relate to official duties." The magistrate judge concluded that judicial immunity does not shield Dugan from prosecution for allegedly violating criminal laws while performing her official judicial duties. "There is no firmly established absolute judicial immunity barring criminal prosecution of judges for judicial acts," Joseph said. Adelman will have the final word on whether to grant Dugan's request to dismiss the indictment. Federal prosecutors and Dugan's lawyers are set to appear before the judge Wednesday to discuss the status of the case and address additional scheduling matters.
Fox News
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Milwaukee judge not immune from charges after allegedly helping illegal immigrant evade ICE, prosecutors say
Federal prosecutors are pushing back against Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan's motion to dismiss an indictment filed against her for allegedly helping an illegal immigrant evade Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers in the Milwaukee County Courthouse last month. Dugan, 65, was indicted last month on federal charges of obstruction of proceedings before a U.S. agency and unlawful concealment of an individual subject to arrest. Her attorneys say she is entitled to judicial immunity and that the federal government overstepped its authority by arresting and charging her, violating her 10th Amendment rights and the principle of separation of powers, according to court documents filed in late May. On Wednesday, prosecutors filed a response to her motion to dismiss, noting that "the Supreme Court has made clear that judges are not immune from criminal liability." "In the end, Dugan asks for this Court to develop a novel doctrine of judicial immunity from criminal prosecution, and to apply it to the facts alleged in the indictment, all without reasonable basis—directly or indirectly—in the Constitution, statutes, or case law," prosecutors wrote. "In her lengthy memorandum, Dugan concedes that '[j]udges, like legislators and executive officials, are not above the law,'" they said. "Dugan's desired ruling would, in essence, say that judges are 'above the law,' and uniquely entitled to interfere with federal law enforcement," prosecutors added. Federal prosecutors allege that the Milwaukee Circuit Court judge personally escorted Mexican illegal immigrant and domestic battery suspect Eduardo Flores-Ruiz out of the courthouse on April 18 while ICE agents were attempting to serve a warrant. The surveillance footage recently released by Milwaukee County in response to an open records request appears to show Dugan, wearing her black robe, confronting ICE agents in the courthouse hallway. Federal prosecutors say members of ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), along with federal partners from the FBI, DEA, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, were preparing to serve Flores-Ruiz with a warrant in a public courthouse hallway on April 18 before his scheduled court appearance with Dugan. WATCH THE SURVEILLANCE FOOTAGE: After becoming aware of what federal officials described as a valid immigration arrest warrant for Flores-Ruiz, Dugan allegedly told agents that they needed a judicial warrant and told them to go to the chief judge's office. The agents then left their place in the hallway, at which point Dugan allegedly chose not to hold a hearing for Flores-Ruiz and "personally escorted" the suspect and his attorney through a private exit while the victims of his alleged crimes were in the courthouse at the time, the Justice Department said in a press release. While Dugan argues that ICE agents interrupted goings-on in the courthouse on April 18, prosecutors say it was Dugan who disrupted proceedings. "The evidence also will show that agents were not in the courtroom when Dugan took the bench, but that—after being told by a member of her staff that ICE agents were present in the hallway—Dugan chose to pause an unrelated case, leave her courtroom, disrupt proceedings in a colleague's courtroom to commandeer her assistance, and then confront agents in the public hallway," the filing says. Prosecutors say evidence also shows Dugan directing agents to the chief judge's office even while knowing he was out, then she "quickly returned to her courtroom and, among other things, directed [Florez-Ruiz's] attorney to 'take your client out and come back and get a date; and then to go through the jury door and down the stairs' before physically escorting [Flroes-Ruiz] and his attorney into a non-public hallway with access to a stairwell that led to a courthouse exit," filings say. Dugan "did this all just days after thanking a colleague for providing information which explained that ICE could lawfully make arrests in the courthouse hall," prosecutors stated Wednesday. "Put simply, nothing in the indictment or the anticipated evidence at trial supports Dugan's assertion that agents 'disrupted' the court's docket; instead, all events arose from Dugan's unilateral, non-judicial, and unofficial actions in obstructing a federal immigration matter over which she, as a Wisconsin state judge, had no authority," the document reads. "At the very least, for purposes of deciding this motion, Dugan's claims to the contrary find no support in the indictment and should be rejected." One of Dugan's defense attorneys, Dean Strang, told Fox News Digital that her counsel has a "good reply" to prosecutors' Wednesday filing, but her team is waiting until their reply brief, due next Monday, to make it. The Milwaukee judge has pleaded not guilty to charges filed against her, and a federal judge has set her trial date for July 21. A federal indictment accuses Dugan of "falsely" telling federal officials in April that they needed a warrant to come into her courtroom during a scheduled appearance by Flores-Ruiz, an undocumented Mexican national facing three misdemeanor battery charges. Video footage appears to show Flores-Ruiz exiting the courthouse with his attorney, while an ICE agent follows him, and then running alongside the building for about a block before agents capture and arrest him. Federal officials arrested Dugan a week after the courthouse incident. Dugan could face a maximum sentence of six years. She has pleaded not guilty to the charges filed against her. Fox News Digital has reached out to her attorney, Craig Mastantuono, for comment on the footage. In April, Dugan's legal team also filed a motion to dismiss the federal case against her, saying the judge "is entitled to judicial immunity for her official acts." "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 motion said.
Yahoo
31-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
More than 130 former judges blast Judge Hannah Dugan's indictment as ‘egregious overreach'
Over 130 former state and federal judges are urging the government to drop its charges against Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan, dubbing her indictment an 'egregious overreach' by the executive branch. The Wisconsin judge was indicted in April after being accused of helping an undocumented migrant flee arrest at her courthouse last month. She faces federal charges of obstructing or impeding a proceeding and concealing an individual to prevent his discovery and arrest — charges that carry a maximum penalty of six years in prison and a $350,000 fine. She has pleaded not guilty. A group of 138 former judges filed an amicus brief in the case Friday, urging the government to dismiss the charges and warning that Dugan's indictment 'threatens to undermine centuries of precedent on judicial immunity, crucial for an effective judiciary.' The case 'represents an extraordinary and direct assault on the independence of the entire judicial system,' the former judges wrote. 'Permitting the prosecution of a state circuit court judge for conduct falling squarely within her rightful exercise of judicial discretion establishes a dangerous precedent that will chill judicial decision-making at every level.' The group argued that 'as a judge, she is entitled to absolute immunity for her official acts; this bar on prosecution is the same absolute immunity that is given to members of the legislative and executive branches for their actions taken in an official capacity.' Dugan's lawyers argued similarly when they filed a motion to dismiss the case this month. Her attorneys cited Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court ruling that determined presidents were immune from criminal prosecution for official acts. 'Judges are entitled to absolute immunity for their judicial acts, without regard to the motive with which those acts are allegedly performed,' her lawyers argued. Judges can make mistakes, the group acknowledged, but those mistakes are redressed in the judicial branch. 'When judges are alleged to have gotten something wrong or have abused authority dedicated exclusively to the judiciary, it falls exclusively to the judiciary, not prosecutors, to investigate the purported mistake through the appellate process or judicial misconduct proceedings,' they wrote. The 138 retired judges also blasted the indictment as an 'egregious overreach by the executive branch threatens public trust in the judicial system and the ability of the public to avail themselves of courthouses without fear of reprisal.' After her initial appearance in court on April 25, she was released from detention. However, the state's supreme court suspended her from the bench days later. 'It is in the public interest that she be temporarily relieved of her official duties,' the state supreme court wrote in an April 29 order. Friday's amicus brief came weeks after 150 former judges wrote a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi following Dugan's arrest. They slammed Bondi for calling judges 'deranged' on April 25, the day of Dugan's arrest. That same day, FBI Director Kash Patel posted a photo of the judge in handcuffs on his official social media account, writing: 'No one is above the law.' The Trump administration has repeatedly attacked judges, with the president himself even calling for one to be impeached in a social media post. The post prompted Chief Justice John Roberts to issue a rare statement: "For more than two centuries it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreements concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose."
The Independent
31-05-2025
- General
- The Independent
More than 130 former judges blast Judge Hannah Dugan's indictment as ‘egregious overreach'
Over 130 former state and federal judges are urging the government to drop its charges against Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan, dubbing her indictment an 'egregious overreach' by the executive branch. The Wisconsin judge was indicted in April after being accused of helping an undocumented migrant flee arrest at her courthouse last month. She faces federal charges of obstructing or impeding a proceeding and concealing an individual to prevent his discovery and arrest — charges that carry a maximum penalty of six years in prison and a $350,000 fine. She has pleaded not guilty. A group of 138 former judges filed an amicus brief in the case Friday, urging the government to dismiss the charges and warning that Dugan's indictment 'threatens to undermine centuries of precedent on judicial immunity, crucial for an effective judiciary.' The case 'represents an extraordinary and direct assault on the independence of the entire judicial system,' the former judges wrote. 'Permitting the prosecution of a state circuit court judge for conduct falling squarely within her rightful exercise of judicial discretion establishes a dangerous precedent that will chill judicial decision-making at every level.' The group argued that 'as a judge, she is entitled to absolute immunity for her official acts; this bar on prosecution is the same absolute immunity that is given to members of the legislative and executive branches for their actions taken in an official capacity.' Dugan's lawyers argued similarly when they filed a motion to dismiss the case this month. Her attorneys cited Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court ruling that determined presidents were immune from criminal prosecution for official acts. 'Judges are entitled to absolute immunity for their judicial acts, without regard to the motive with which those acts are allegedly performed,' her lawyers argued. Judges can make mistakes, the group acknowledged, but those mistakes are redressed in the judicial branch. 'When judges are alleged to have gotten something wrong or have abused authority dedicated exclusively to the judiciary, it falls exclusively to the judiciary, not prosecutors, to investigate the purported mistake through the appellate process or judicial misconduct proceedings,' they wrote. The 138 retired judges also blasted the indictment as an 'egregious overreach by the executive branch threatens public trust in the judicial system and the ability of the public to avail themselves of courthouses without fear of reprisal.' After her initial appearance in court on April 25, she was released from detention. However, the state's supreme court suspended her from the bench days later. 'It is in the public interest that she be temporarily relieved of her official duties,' the state supreme court wrote in an April 29 order. Friday's amicus brief came weeks after 150 former judges wrote a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi following Dugan's arrest. They slammed Bondi for calling judges 'deranged' on April 25, the day of Dugan's arrest. That same day, FBI Director Kash Patel posted a photo of the judge in handcuffs on his official social media account, writing: 'No one is above the law.' The Trump administration has repeatedly attacked judges, with the president himself even calling for one to be impeached in a social media post. The post prompted Chief Justice John Roberts to issue a rare statement: "For more than two centuries it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreements concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose."
Daily Mail
31-05-2025
- General
- Daily Mail
Wisconsin judge who shielded illegal migrant from ICE shares latest defense: 'I am absolutely immune'
A Wisconsin judge indicted for allegedly helping an undocumented immigrant evade ICE is now claiming 'absolute judicial immunity' in a broader legal effort to dismiss all charges. Hannah Dugan, 66, a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, was arrested by FBI agents on April 25 for allegedly preventing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from detaining a man in her courtroom. The man, 31-year-old Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, was reportedly subject to a federal detainer at the time. Federal prosecutors allege Dugan directed ICE officers to the chief judge's office while allowing Flores-Ruiz and his attorney to exit through a door typically used by jurors. The long-time judge was later indicted on May 13 on charges of obstructing a federal agency and aiding Flores-Ruiz's escape. However, in a 37-page memorandum filed May 14, her attorneys argued the indictment is an 'ugly innovation' that threatens long-standing legal precedent. They claim Dugan is protected by 'absolute judicial immunity' for actions taken as part of her official duties, even if those actions are later contested. 'Judges can be and are charged for actions wholly unrelated to their role, like taking bribes or kidnapping,' the memo notes, adding that Dugan's conduct occurred squarely within her judicial capacity. Her high-powered legal team, including attorney Dean Strang, warned the case could set a 'dangerous precedent,' undermining judicial independence. 'This is an extraordinary prosecution that poses a threat to federalism and judicial independence,' the filing states. 'Dismissal here flows from a straightforward application of long-settled law. The indictment itself is an ugly innovation. Its dismissal will not be.' The filing continues: 'Nothing in the Constitution allows the federal government to superintend the administration and case-by-case, daily functioning of state courts as this indictment proposes.' This latest motion expands on an earlier filing with more detailed arguments about federal overreach and the constitutional role of judges. Dugan's attorneys maintain she acted within her jurisdiction and broke no laws in declining to facilitate the detention. The US Department of Justice, however, characterizes the incident as obstruction of federal law, triggering a contentious legal and political debate. An amicus brief filed on Friday by 138 former state and federal judges supports Dugan, arguing she is entitled to 'absolute immunity for her official acts.' The brief compares this protection to that granted to members of the legislative and executive branches. It calls the prosecution an 'egregious overreach by the executive branch' that 'threatens public trust in the judicial system and the ability of the public to avail themselves of courthouses without fear of reprisal.' But, the Justice Department maintains that no one - including judges - is above the law when it comes to obstructing federal immigration operations. 'Since President Trump was inaugurated, activist judges have tried to obstruct President Trump and the American people's mandate to make America safe and secure our homeland - but this judge's actions to shield an accused violent criminal illegal alien from justice is shocking and shameful,' Assistant Secretary Department of Homeland Security Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. Dugan, who was released after her arrest, pleaded not guilty earlier this month. Her trial is set to begin the week of July 21. If found guilty of both charges, she could face up to six years in prison and $350,000 in fines. She has served as a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge since 2016, winning election with about 65 percent of the vote and running unopposed for reelection in 2022, according to CBS News. As for Flores-Ruiz, he had appeared in Dugan's court on April 18 for a status conference in a misdemeanor battery case, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. He is accused of repeatedly hitting and briefly strangling his roommate, and also striking two women who tried to intervene. Flores-Ruiz has pleaded not guilty to three battery charges and to a separate federal charge of illegally re-entering the US after being deported to Mexico 12 years ago. Six federal agents were present at the courthouse on April 18 to arrest him. He was ultimately taken into custody after a short chase outside the courthouse.
