A Wisconsin judge indicted for allegedly helping an immigrant evade federal authorities is now using President Donald Trump’s own legal arguments to defend herself.
Judge Hannah Dugan, who faces federal charges related to allegedly obstructing justice, has cited the Supreme Court ruling that granted Trump presidential immunity to argue that she, too, should be immune from prosecution for her official acts.
In a seven-page motion to dismiss filed Wednesday, Dugan’s attorneys wrote, “The problems with this prosecution are legion, but most immediately, the government cannot prosecute Judge Dugan because she is entitled to judicial immunity for her official acts.” They further argued, “Immunity is not a defense to the prosecution to be determined later by a jury or court; it is an absolute bar to the prosecution at the outset,” directly referencing the Trump v. United States decision.
Dugan was indicted on Tuesday on two federal counts of obstruction. The charges stem from allegations that she concealed a person from federal agents and obstructed government proceedings. Prosecutors claim that Dugan directed Eduardo Flores-Ruiz to exit the courtroom through a side door, away from federal officers who had come to arrest him. Flores-Ruiz and his attorney then traveled through a public hallway, passing Drug Enforcement Administration agents, before Flores-Ruiz was eventually apprehended after a brief foot chase.
Despite these allegations, Dugan’s legal team contends that the specific actions and motives behind them are irrelevant if she qualifies for judicial immunity. They argue that judges have broad authority to control their courtrooms and courthouses, protecting them from criminal prosecution for official acts, much like the immunity Trump’s legal team relied upon.
“Even if, contrary to what the trial evidence would show, Judge Dugan took the actions the complaint alleges, these plainly were judicial acts for which she has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution,” the motion states. It continues, “Judges are empowered to maintain control over their courtrooms specifically and the courthouse generally.”
The defense also emphasized that a judge’s motives do not impact the applicability of immunity. “Judge Dugan’s subjective motivations are irrelevant to immunity,” they wrote, citing once again from the Trump v. United States ruling, which holds, “In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives.”
They concluded, “Judge Dugan therefore has both immunity from conviction and immunity from prosecution.” The case’s key legal question is whether Dugan’s actions qualify as official judicial acts. If the court determines they do, she cannot be prosecuted.
Observers note that Dugan’s prosecution appears to be politically charged. The Trump administration has signaled a broader effort to penalize judges who challenge the president’s agenda. Attorney General Pam Bondi warned that Dugan’s arrest marked the start of a crackdown on the judiciary by law enforcement.
The situation raises complex legal questions about judicial immunity and how it intersects with federal prosecutions, especially when political motivations are alleged.
