Judges don't have Trump-like criminal immunity, court finds
Wisconsin County Judge Hannah Dugan hoped to benefit from the Supreme Court's immunity ruling, but a federal judge found that was for presidents, not jurists.
All Rise News plans to report on the case of Judge Hannah Dugan closely, including through live coverage for her upcoming trial on the ground in Milwaukee, Wisc.
If you haven’t already, become a paid subscriber to keep us where the news is.
Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan had wanted to avoid an upcoming trial in Milwaukee Federal Court by claiming that she benefited from the same criminal immunity for official acts that Donald Trump did.
On Monday, a federal magistrate judge rejected that argument, recommending that Dugan’s case proceed to a trial.
“Perhaps in some future case the Supreme Court will expand the judicial immunity principles it has so firmly established in the civil context to the criminal prosecution of judges as Dugan urges,” U.S. Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph wrote in a 37-page report. “At this time, however, I am unconvinced that either the common law or the Trump decision provide the authority for applying the civil framework of absolute judicial immunity for judicial acts to the prosecution of judges for crimes that relate to official duties.”
Possible Action Item:
After Dugan’s arrest, hundreds of people protested outside a Milwaukee federal courthouse. The Washington Post and other outlets noticed. Imagine if no one showed up.
Learn about a key protest organizer by clicking here.
The magistrate’s recommendation will now head to U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman for a final trial-court level determination on Dugan’s motion to dismiss.
If Adelman agrees with his magistrate’s view, Dugan will stand trial for allegedly helping an undocumented immigrant evade arrest. She has pleaded not guilty to those allegations, and her case escalates Trump’s attacks on judges, politicians, and others perceived to oppose the administration’s immigration agenda.
“Dugan is presumed innocent, and innocent she remains, unless and until the government proves the allegations against her beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury at trial,” the magistrate noted toward the end of her report.
In April, federal authorities arrested Dugan over actions that she took to control her courtroom when presiding over the case of Eduardo Flores-Ruiz. Prosecutors say that Dugan appeared “visibly angry” about Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s presence outside the courtroom, where they were waiting in the hallway to arrest the defendant following a hearing. Dugan allegedly took Flores-Ruiz through the jury door instead of the main exit, and the defendant left through the public hallway.
Her case has provoked widespread alarm throughout the legal community: 138 state and federal judges filed an amicus brief in late May describing Dugan’s indictment as “an extraordinary and direct assault on the independence of the entire judicial system.”
“Permitting the prosecution of a state circuit court judge for conduct falling squarely within her rightful exercise of judicial discretion establishes a dangerous precedent that will chill judicial decision-making at every level,” the attorneys for the judges wrote. “This case directly threatens the ability of all judges to do their jobs without fear of retaliatory prosecution.”
Her attorney did not immediately respond to an email requesting comment. A status conference in her case has been scheduled for Wednesday.
Special announcement
On Wednesday morning at 11:30 a.m. Eastern Time, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) will hold his debut Substack Live with me at All Rise News, in an interview focused on his investigation into whether Paramount’s capitulation to Trump in a $16 million settlement amounts to bribery.
Read more about his investigation here, and find the live-stream of the interview here.
This is chillingly disturbing.
Adam, please remind us about magistrate judges, whether all states have them, and scope of their duties. Thanks!