Background: Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan was seen in court. In a related image, surveillance footage captured Judge Hannah Dugan talking to ICE agents before Eduardo Flores-Ruiz was detained.
Over 130 former state and federal judges are advocating for the charges against Judge Hannah Dugan to be dropped. She is accused of obstructing government agents during an immigration raid.
A bipartisan group of 138 judges, part of Defenders Democracy Fund, have come together to support Dugan by filing an amicus brief. They strongly criticized Dugan’s arrest and prosecution, labeling it as a severe attack on the entire judicial system’s independence. This standpoint aligns with the arguments presented by Dugan in her recent motion to dismiss the case, submitted last week.
“This case directly threatens the ability of all judges to do their jobs without fear of retaliatory prosecution,” the brief charges. “As judges with an obligation to preserve the integrity of the judiciary, we believe our perspective on the historical and legal underpinnings of judicial immunity will materially assist the court in navigating the significant constitutional questions presented by this case.”
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.
Dugan, 65, was indicted last month after she allegedly helped an undocumented immigrant evade federal officers shortly after he appeared in her courtroom in connection with a domestic abuse case. She filed a motion Thursday seeking to have the federal obstruction charges she’s facing thrown out, arguing that much in the way that the president is immune from prosecution for official acts while in office, she is the beneficiary of broad judicial immunity.
“In practice, the Department of Justice is effectively requiring state court judges, in running their courtrooms and otherwise discharging their judicial responsibilities, to prioritize the interests of federal law enforcement above all else or risk federal prosecution,” the amicus brief says. “In other words, the federal government seeks to use criminal statutes — here, obstruction and concealment — as a means of compelling state court officials to prioritize the interest of federal officers, whenever they appear, over the parties, witnesses, and victims in the case and above the requirements of the state law to be applied.”
Dugan’s argument for dismissal largely hinges on the U.S. Supreme Court last year granting presidents far-reaching immunity from criminal prosecution.
“This is an extraordinary prosecution that poses a threat to federalism and judicial independence,” Dugan’s lawyers said. “In practical terms of American governmental design, consider starkly what it proposes.”
Friday’s amicus brief notes how the judges and Defenders Democracy Fund are not parties in the case, but rather filing a “friend of the court” brief to offer their “perspective on the historical and legal principles of judicial immunity, judicial independence and impartiality, and Tenth Amendment considerations in hopes of materially assisting the Court in navigating the significant constitutional questions presented by this case,” according to the filing.
The group was co-founded by former Obama “ethics czar” and diplomat Norm Eisen, with it being a vocal critic of Donald Trump.
“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 brief says.
“The very act of defending against criminal charges, regardless of the ultimate outcome, would inherently distract the judge from her official duties, consume her resources, and subject her to the very pressures that undermine judicial independence,” it later adds. “Such a result would render the absolute nature of judicial immunity meaningless, transforming it from a fundamental right not to be sued into a mere defense.”
The judges on Friday condemned Dugan’s prosecution as being “extraordinary” and one that “casts an intimidating shadow over the exercise of judicial independence and threatens to chill judicial officials in Wisconsin and all other states who do not give way to federal immigration demands or arrest warrants in or near their courtrooms.”
Prosecutors have until June 9 to reply to Dugan’s motion to dismiss.
