Federal authorities assert that the Milwaukee judge under scrutiny for allegedly aiding an undocumented immigrant to avoid apprehension is not entitled to immunity from potential criminal charges.
A federal judge might find themselves in hot water if they try to evade criminal charges based on judicial immunity. This was the argument made by federal prosecutors earlier this week, in connection with Wisconsin's Judge Hannah Dugan.
Dugan, 65, was arrested by the FBI back in April and is charged with helping a defendant, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, escape arrest by immigration authorities. Prosecutors believe that her attempt to dismiss the charges dismisses the well-established law that allows judges to be prosecuted for criminal activities they commit.
The government's filing also criticizes Dugan's claim that federal agents disrupted her courtroom when they sought to arrest Flores-Ruiz on alleged immigration violations. Instead, the prosecution claims, it was Dugan who disrupted the federal agents' duties by interfering with their operations.
The filing goes on to allege that Dugan directed Flores-Ruiz and his attorney through a back door and an elevator instead of the stairs, leading them to an exit. The video evidence obtained from surveillance cameras at the courthouse, however, shows that the man and his attorney did not take the stairs but instead went down the elevator after the encounter with the judge.
If Dugan is found guilty, she could potentially be charged under federal obstruction laws, such as 18 U.S. Code § 1503, which applies to anyone found to have intentionally obstructed or attempted to obstruct a federal investigation or proceeding. Judge Dugan's case serves as a reminder that judicial immunity does not protect judges from criminal liability for non-judicial, illegal acts.
In cases like these, a key controversy often arises concerning the type of warrant used by federal agents. Judges may question the validity of administrative warrants (issued by federal agencies) versus judicial warrants (issued by judges). However, law enforcement is not required to produce a judicial warrant for administrative immigration arrests inside courthouses. Prosecutors argue that a judge who knowingly helps someone avoid arrest by federal agents, regardless of the type of warrant, may be acting outside the scope of their judicial duties and thus lose immunity.
Dugan has pleaded not guilty to the charges, and her trial is set for July 21. In defending her case, her lawyers have argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in President Donald Trump's immunity case supports their claim that she has judicial immunity for official acts, and that her prosecution is unconstitutional. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has already suspended Dugan pending the outcome of her case.
- Federal prosecutors argue that Judge Hannah Dugan, if found guilty, could be charged under federal obstruction laws for intentionally obstructing the arrest of an immigration defendant.
- The controversial case of Judge Dugan highlights the distinction between judicial immunity for judicial acts and liability for non-judicial, illegal acts.
- Prosecutors claim that Judge Dugan's actions, which include helping a defendant evade arrest by immigration authorities, may be outside the scope of her judicial duties and therefore she could lose her immunity.
- In her defense, Judge Dugan's lawyers argue that the US Supreme Court's decision in President Donald Trump's immunity case supports their claim that she has judicial immunity for official acts, and that her prosecution is unconstitutional.
