Wisconsin Judge Must Face Charges in ICE Obstruction Case

The decision on Tuesday means the US Justice Department can move forward with the prosecution of Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan. Her indictment was part of a broader pushback by US officials against so-called sanctuary cities and local authorities perceived as standing in the way of President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.

Dugan, who has denied wrongdoing, can appeal the decision by US District Judge Lynn Adelman. The ruling didn’t address the merits of the underlying criminal case. Adelman adopted the recommendation of a US magistrate judge who rebuffed Dugan’s claim of immunity from being prosecuted for actions she took as a judge and proposed the case go forward.

Dugan’s lawyers and a Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Dugan was arrested in May and accused of trying to prevent members of a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement task force from arresting a Mexican immigrant, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, who had appeared in her courtroom.

The two-count indictment alleges Dugan directed federal officials away from Flores-Ruiz’s location inside the Milwaukee courthouse and then allowed him and his lawyer to leave through a nonpublic door. 

Adelman rejected Dugan’s arguments for immunity that shields judges from being prosecuted for actions they take related to their official duties. The judge also found that the government plausibly argued that Dugan’s alleged actions fell outside her judicial role, meaning she wouldn’t be covered even if there was some limited judicial immunity.

“There is no basis for granting immunity simply because some of the allegations in the indictment describe conduct that could be considered ‘part of a judge’s job,’” Adelman wrote.

Flores-Ruiz was arrested outside the courthouse. He pleaded guilty in June to illegally being in the US and agreed to be deported, according to court records.

Dugan’s lawyers also argued that the indictment violated the Constitution’s division of power between the federal government and states. Her lawyers cited the US Supreme Court’s ruling last year that Trump — and all US presidents — have sweeping immunity from prosecution for official acts.

“Judges are empowered to maintain control over their courtrooms specifically and the courthouse generally,” Dugan’s lawyers wrote.

The US attorney’s office in Milwaukee, which is handling the prosecution, countered that Dugan’s lawyers were pressing a “manufactured version” of judicial immunity based on a “factually unsupported and inaccurate storyline that the federal government somehow tried to ‘commandeer’ or ‘control’ a state courtroom.” 

In early July, US Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph urged Adelman to reject the immunity claim, saying the indictment wasn’t related to Dugan’s legal opinions or courtroom management, but separate, obstructive acts. Joseph rebuffed Dugan’s argument that a judge’s motive, especially whether they were acting for “self-enrichment,” mattered.

Federal magistrate judges are appointed by US district judges for eight-year terms. They can preside over certain cases and make binding rulings, but also serve a support role, including preparing reports with recommendations for district judges to consider on disputed issues in a case.

A trial was originally scheduled to begin July 21 but was indefinitely postponed amid the immunity fight.

The case is USA v. Dugan, 25-cr-89, US District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin (Milwaukee).

(Updated with details from the opinion and background.)

More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com