As the trial date nears in the high-profile immigration case involving Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan, the presiding federal judge has delivered a series of unfavorable rulings for the defense.

On Tuesday evening, U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, appointed by Bill Clinton, issued a comprehensive 21-page decision that predominantly dismissed several key motions put forth by Dugan’s defense team.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Justice submitted a motion in limine—a pretrial request to determine the admissibility of specific evidence—comprising 14 distinct items.

In response, Judge Dugan’s legal team filed their own motions in limine, presenting 13 separate requests.

The ensuing legal skirmish saw both the defense and the DOJ submitting numerous filings, each challenging the opposing side’s evidentiary positions.

While the court’s decision doesn’t deliver absolute victories for either party, the outcome favors the Trump administration’s stance more than it does Judge Dugan’s defense.

At the outset, Adelman granted requests by the government that bar the defense from making arguments over punishment, jury nullification, the sufficiency of discovery in the case, and how Dugan was arrested. The court also disallowed the defense from defining “reasonable doubt.”

The ruling on Dugan’s arrest contains an additional sting. In a footnote, Adelman elaborates to say that the issue is related to defense requests to question FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi under oath — requests the court ultimately denied.

Dugan, for her part, argued that statements made by Patel and Bondi were relevant to show bias in the investigation itself — and should therefore be admitted under the federal evidentiary rules.

But the court disputed that logic.

“[W]hile bias is broadly admissible on issues of credibility, neither the Attorney General nor the FBI Director will testify in this case,” the order reads. “[D]efendant should not be permitted to inject national political figures into this trial. Any slight probative value of this evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, and wasting time. Defendant’s motion is denied.”

The defense also sustained a major loss on the issue of Dugan’s official acts as a judge.

In her first motion in limine, the defense argued “[s]he had a legal right to engage in those acts,” in reference to the charged actions which make up the government’s case against her.

Dugan allegedly impeded Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents during an immigration bust by helping a Mexican national named Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, who is facing misdemeanor battery charges, leave through a jury door after a hearing in his criminal case.

The judge sharply disputes the basis of the indictment itself.

“[E]ach of the five acts listed in this indictment were ones that Judge Dugan had a legal right to undertake in the minutes after she learned that ICE agents were outside her courtroom,” the defense argued. “She was within the lawful powers of her job.”

In response, DOJ attorneys argued Dugan’s motion was essentially attempting to re-litigate an already-foreclosed judicial immunity issue.

In the end, Adelman sided with the government.

“As the government notes, defendant’s motion in limine would in effect confer partial judicial immunity and put much of the government’s proof off limits,” Adelman writes. “I agree that the correct approach is to permit the jury to consider all of defendant’s conduct on April 18, 2025, in deciding whether she concealed an alien under § 1071 or corruptly endeavored to obstruct a proceeding under § 1505.”

But the news was not all bad for the defense.

Notably, the government was barred from arguing “whether defendant violated the rights of [Flores-Ruiz’s] alleged victims,” finding such arguments would contain the “danger of unfair prejudice.”

Adelman also granted several of Dugan’s requests that asked for sequestration of witnesses, written jury instructions, prohibiting character evidence, prohibiting reference to the defendant’s personal beliefs, barring the government from “eliciting undisclosed expert testimony,” and directing the DOJ to turn over certain grand jury materials before trial starts.

Dugan is currently slated to face a trial on her charges beginning Dec. 15.