Prosecutors fight Milwaukee judge’s bid to dismiss ICE obstruction case
Federal prosecutors are pushing back against Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan’s motion to dismiss an indictment filed against her for allegedly helping an illegal immigrant evade Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers in the Milwaukee County Courthouse last month. Dugan, 65, was indicted last month on federal charges of obstruction of proceedings before a U.S. agency and unlawful concealment of an individual subject to arrest. Her attorneys argue that she is entitled to judicial immunity and that the federal government overstepped its authority by arresting and charging her, violating her 10th Amendment rights and the principle of separation of powers.
In response to Dugan’s motion to dismiss, prosecutors filed a detailed response, emphasizing that the Supreme Court has made it clear that judges are not immune from criminal liability. They argue that Dugan’s request for a novel doctrine of judicial immunity from criminal prosecution has no reasonable basis in the Constitution, statutes, or case law. The prosecutors also point out that Dugan herself has admitted that judges are not above the law and that her desired ruling would essentially place judges above the law and uniquely entitled to interfere with federal law enforcement.
The federal indictment alleges that Dugan personally escorted Mexican illegal immigrant Eduardo Flores-Ruiz out of the courthouse while ICE agents were attempting to serve a warrant on him. Surveillance footage released by Milwaukee County shows Dugan, wearing her black robe, confronting ICE agents in the courthouse hallway. The footage suggests that Dugan disrupted proceedings by choosing not to hold a hearing for Flores-Ruiz and instead personally escorting him and his attorney through a private exit while the victims of his alleged crimes were present in the courthouse.
Prosecutors argue that Dugan’s actions were unauthorized and that she disrupted proceedings by intervening in a federal immigration matter over which she had no authority. They also highlight evidence that shows Dugan directing agents to the chief judge’s office and then physically escorting Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out of the courthouse. The prosecutors assert that Dugan’s claims of agents disrupting the court’s docket are unfounded, and that all events stemmed from Dugan’s unilateral and non-judicial actions.
Dugan has pleaded not guilty to the charges filed against her, and a federal judge has set her trial date for July 21. She could face a maximum sentence of six years if convicted. Dugan’s legal team has argued that she is entitled to judicial immunity for her official acts, but prosecutors maintain that immunity is not a defense to the prosecution. The case continues to unfold as both sides present their arguments in court.
In conclusion, the case against Judge Hannah Dugan highlights the complex legal issues surrounding judicial immunity and the separation of powers. As the trial date approaches, both sides will continue to make their arguments in court, and the outcome of the case will have significant implications for the future of judicial accountability and the relationship between federal and state law enforcement agencies.
