Wisconsin Judge Denies Accountability, Labels DOJ Indictment an 'Ugly Innovation' in Legal Immunity Debate
Judge Hannah Dugan's legal team files motion to dismiss, citing judicial immunity amid allegations of aiding an illegal immigrant evasion from ICE.
The legal defense for Judge Hannah Dugan, a Wisconsin judge at the center of a controversial federal case, has expanded a motion to dismiss charges alleging she helped a man evade immigration authorities. In documents filed with the court, Dugan’s attorneys sharply criticized the prosecution, stressing that Dugan’s actions were protected by judicial immunity and arguing that the federal government had overreached by bringing charges against her.
Central to Dugan’s defense is the principle that judges are shielded from prosecution for official acts performed in their judicial capacity. Her lawyers contend that the indictment represents an overstep by federal authorities into matters traditionally left to the discretion of state judges. They further assert that prosecuting Dugan violates the Tenth Amendment—which reserves certain powers to states—and upends the separation of powers between branches of government.
The defense memo acknowledges that judges can face criminal charges for conduct entirely unrelated to their duties—such as bribery or infringing on constitutional rights—but notes that Judge Dugan is not accused of such behavior. Instead, they argue, “the indictment itself is an ugly innovation. Its dismissal will not be,” referencing what they describe as the unprecedented nature of the case.
Dugan has pleaded not guilty to federal charges after being accused of intervening during an attempt by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to detain Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, who was facing misdemeanor battery charges. According to the indictment, Dugan allegedly misinformed the agents about a requirement for a judicial warrant and then directed them elsewhere within the courthouse. Proceedings related to Flores-Ruiz’s case reportedly took place off the record, and after the hearing, Dugan purportedly helped Flores-Ruiz leave the building through a private exit. Despite these events, ICE ultimately arrested Flores-Ruiz.
The case has drawn sharp criticism from federal officials, with the Department of Homeland Security publicly rebuking what it describes as interference by “activist judges” in the administration of immigration law. Tricia McLaughlin, Assistant Secretary of DHS, commented that Dugan’s actions to protect an undocumented immigrant facing criminal charges exemplified judicial obstruction of the federal mandate to secure the nation’s borders, labeling the episode “shocking and shameful.”
Recently released surveillance footage appears to show Dugan confronting ICE agents in a courthouse hallway, then directing Flores-Ruiz and his attorney through a less-used exit. The allegations have generated national attention amid broader debates over the responsibilities and limits of judicial officers, as well as the intersection of local court functions with federal immigration enforcement.
Judge Dugan, indicted earlier this year on charges of concealing a person from arrest and obstruction of justice, could face up to six years in prison and $350,000 in fines if convicted on all counts. A trial is scheduled for July, where the outcome may have significant implications for the scope of judicial authority and the balance of power between state courts and federal agencies.
