Background: Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan in court (WTMJ/YouTube). Left inset: Donald Trump speaks at the annual Road to Majority conference in Washington, DC, in June 2024 (Allison Bailey/NurPhoto via AP). Right inset: Surveillance video shows Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan speaking with ICE agents before Eduardo Flores-Ruiz’s detainment (WDJT/YouTube).
The Trump administration continues its legal battle against Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan, urging a federal court on Monday to reject her motion to dismiss the ICE obstruction case against her. The administration claims that the case is based on a “factually unsupported and inaccurate storyline” and involves an attempt to “commandeer” a state courtroom, along with a “manufactured version of judicial immunity.”
Attorneys for the U.S. Department of Justice made the claims in a 25-page response to Dugan’s motion to dismiss that she filed on May 29.
Judge Dugan, 65, was indicted last month, accused of aiding an undocumented immigrant in evading federal officers shortly after a court appearance related to a domestic abuse case. She submitted a motion to dismiss the federal obstruction charges against her, arguing that she is entitled to broad judicial immunity, similar to the immunity a president has from prosecution for official actions while in office.
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.
“However, she cites no case in which a court has dismissed an indictment on either basis, and neither ground has merit,” the DOJ said in its response Monday.
“In her lengthy memorandum, Dugan concedes that ‘judges, like legislators and executive officials, are not above the law,’” the DOJ added. “Nonetheless, she claims that judges are entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution except for ‘three categories of crimes,’ none of which — according to Dugan — applies here.”
More than 130 former state and federal judges have called for a dismissal of Dugan’s charges, joining forces in an amicus brief filed on May 30. The bipartisan collective — members of the group Democracy Defenders Fund — blasted Dugan’s arrest and prosecution as “an extraordinary and direct assault on the independence of the entire judicial system,” echoing statements made by Dugan in her motion. “This case directly threatens the ability of all judges to do their jobs without fear of retaliatory prosecution,” the brief charged.
In its response Monday, the DOJ said dismissing the charges because Dugan is “immune” would be what’s truly unprecedented.
“Dugan asks this Court for an unprecedented dismissal on grounds of judicial immunity, ignoring well-established law that has long permitted judges to be prosecuted for crimes they commit,” the DOJ said. “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. Dugan’s desired ruling would, in essence, say that judges are ‘above the law,’ and uniquely entitled to interfere with federal law enforcement.”
More from Law&Crime: ‘She knew nothing about it’: Judge accused of letting migrant out back door to avoid feds said she expected ICE to ‘do its job’
The DOJ went on to rip Dugan’s arguments as “inaptly” relying on civil law and “the notion that judicial immunity applies absent express Congressional abrogation.” The lawyers claim she does not point to any direct authority for her “theories” — nor could she, according to the Trump administration.
“The Supreme Court has made clear that judges are not immune from criminal liability,” the DOJ said, citing a 1974 ruling in O’Shea v. Littleton, which acknowledged that judges and magistrates can be held accountable in criminal proceedings or through civil rights lawsuits, when legally warranted.
“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,” the DOJ said.
Taking aim at her “commandeer” a state courtroom claims, the Justice Department said trial evidence, including video footage and audio recordings, will show that Dugan’s allegations are false. The agency described its arrest of Flores-Ruiz as being “planned” and orderly, rather than the takeover that Dugan says happened.
“Agents were not in the courtroom when Dugan took the bench,” the DOJ said. “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 DOJ added, “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. 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.”
Dugan’s attorney, Craig Mastantuono, did not respond to Law&Crime’s request for comment Tuesday.
