Judge cites Trump ‘official acts’ immunity to dismiss migrant abetting charges


Summary

Judge seeks dismissal of charges

Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan is seeking dismissal of federal charges alleging she helped an undocumented immigrant evade ICE arrest during a court appearance.

Judge's arguments

Her lawyers argue the prosecution violates judicial immunity and state sovereignty.

Suspension

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has suspended Dugan amid the ongoing case.


This recording was made using enhanced software.

Summary

Judge seeks dismissal of charges

Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan is seeking dismissal of federal charges alleging she helped an undocumented immigrant evade ICE arrest during a court appearance.

Judge's arguments

Her lawyers argue the prosecution violates judicial immunity and state sovereignty.

Suspension

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has suspended Dugan amid the ongoing case.


Full story

A judge in Wisconsin facing criminal charges for allegedly trying to help a man in the U.S. without legal immigration status is seeking to have her case dismissed. On Wednesday, May 14, lawyers for Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan responded to the charges by filing a motion to dismiss, claiming there is no legal basis for prosecuting her.

Her lawyers argue that it is extremely rare — if not unheard of — for a judge to be prosecuted for this type of action. In court documents, Dugan’s legal team argues that the federal government is overstepping its authority by charging a state judge for actions allegedly taken as part of her judicial duties.

“The problems with this 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 reads. “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.”

Citing presidential immunity case

Her legal team cites Trump v. United States, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if a president performs actions within their constitutional powers, they cannot be prosecuted for those actions, even after leaving office.

Dugan’s motion further claims the federal government overstepped its bounds and infringed on Wisconsin’s rights as a state. “The government’s prosecution here reaches directly into a state courthouse, disrupting active proceedings, and interferes with the official duties of an elected judge,” the motion states.

Federal charges and arrest

Federal agents arrested Dugan on April 25. A federal grand jury later indicted her on charges of obstruction and concealing an individual.

The charges stem from allegations that she assisted Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a migrant residing in the U.S. illegally, when he evaded arrest by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents during a court appearance. Dugan allegedly instructed him to exit the courthouse via a side entrance typically used for employees. ICE eventually caught Flores-Ruiz.

Immigration enforcement tensions

The case highlights ongoing tensions between local officials and the federal government regarding immigration enforcement. Critics argue that ICE arrests in courthouses deter immigrants from seeking justice or protection through the legal system.

Federal authorities, including the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office, defend courthouse arrests, stating that they provide a safe, controlled environment that minimizes risk during detentions.

To maintain public trust in the judicial system, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended Judge Dugan.

Tags: , , , , ,

Why this story matters

The case of Judge Hannah Dugan's motion to dismiss federal charges on the grounds of judicial immunity raises fundamental questions about the limits of judicial accountability, state versus federal authority, and the continuing effects of recent Supreme Court immunity rulings.

Judicial immunity

Judge Dugan's claim to judicial immunity for actions taken in her official capacity highlights ongoing legal debates about the extent to which judges can be prosecuted for their courtroom decisions.

Federal vs. state authority

This case brings attention to tensions between federal law enforcement powers and state sovereignty, especially when federal authorities prosecute state judicial officials for acts performed in state courthouses.

Precedent and legal boundaries

By referencing the Supreme Court's Trump v. United States decision, the case illustrates the broader implications and possible ripple effects of high court rulings concerning the immunity of public officials.

Bias comparison

  • Media outlets on the left frame Judge Dugan’s indictment as a politically charged overreach, emphasizing the “flimsy” prosecution and portraying her courtroom conduct as proper, employing emotionally charged language like “turns tables” to highlight justice served against Trump-aligned forces.
  • Not enough coverage from media outlets in the center to provide a bias comparison.
  • Media outlets on the right stress law-and-order themes, using terms such as “illegal” and “accused,” spotlighting the alleged threats posed by Flores-Ruiz’s criminal history and condemning the prosecution as a “cynical intimidation” of judicial authority, framing Dugan as “no ordinary defendant” deserving absolute immunity.

Media landscape

Click on bars to see headlines

13 total sources

Key points from the Left

  • Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan is seeking to dismiss federal charges against her for concealing a person from arrest and obstruction of proceedings.
  • Dugan's lawyers claim she is entitled to judicial immunity for her official acts in court, citing the Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. United States.
  • Dugan was indicted on two counts, but her legal team argues that she is immune from prosecution.
  • The Wisconsin Elections Commission chief Ann Jacobs observed that Dugan's actions did not obstruct the arrest of Flores-Ruiz, as it led to federal agents.

Report an issue with this summary

Key points from the Center

  • On May 14, Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan’s legal team submitted a request to dismiss the federal charges against her, invoking judicial immunity following her indictment the day before.
  • The charges stem from an April 18 incident in which Dugan allegedly helped Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an undocumented immigrant, evade immigration agents by directing his exit through a non-public door.
  • Dugan's attorneys argue the prosecution violates the 10th Amendment and constitutional federalism principles, asserting that her courtroom actions were official judicial acts protected by immunity.
  • The defense cited the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, emphasizing that immunity completely prevents prosecution from proceeding, rather than serving as a claim to be evaluated by a jury or judge at a later stage.
  • Dugan has been federally indicted for allegedly obstructing justice and helping someone evade arrest, but her legal team has filed a motion to dismiss the case citing judicial immunity, and she plans to enter a not guilty plea at her arraignment.

Report an issue with this summary

Key points from the Right

  • Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan filed a motion to dismiss federal charges, claiming she has immunity from prosecution based on federal overreach by prosecutors.
  • A federal grand jury indicted Dugan for allegedly helping Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an illegal immigrant, escape U.S. authorities.
  • Dugan’s attorneys argue that she is entitled to absolute immunity for her official duties as a judge and that the prosecution disrupts court proceedings.
  • Attorney General Pam Bondi stated that no one is above the law, emphasizing the importance of accountability for all individuals.

Report an issue with this summary

Other (sources without bias rating):

  • No coverage from Other sources 0 sources

Powered by Ground News™

OSZAR »