We have been closely following the case of Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan, who was arrested and then indicted for allegedly helping an illegal alien escape from ICE (most recent post listed first):
As I reported on May 17, Judge Dugan’s defense team (of seven lawyers (see disclosure statement here)) filed a motion to dismiss the case, available here, arguing that Dugan’s actions in potentially committing two federal crimes were privileged by the doctrine of “judicial immunity,” meaning that because these were official acts (i.e. controlling her courtroom), she was immune from prosecution.
Legal experts seemed skeptical, as I reported, with Jonathan Turley and others on X looking askance at Dugan’s motion to dismiss:
More on Turley’s reasoning:
A former 22-year federal prosecutor also agreed the motion to dismiss was shaky at best:
Others weighed in as well, as a quick search of X for “Dugan” reveals. And the court has yet to rule on Dugan’s motion to dismiss.
But there have also been three recent developments of note that bear reporting:
First, 15 days after filing her motion to dismiss, Dugan, on May 29, filed a “Memorandum Supporting Motion to Dismiss,” which you can review here.
I leave it to the aforementioned 22-year federal prosecutor to address this “Memorandum” (summary after the X post):
Summarizing:
Yesterday her attorneys filed another motion, stating that it is meant to “explain” the issues raised in the earlier motion.My view is that some attorney with a little bit of talent and experience looked at what was filed a couple of weeks ago and said “Yeah, this won’t cut it.”What was filed yesterday is much longer. And it goes into much more history and detail on the question of judicial immunity, making the same sweeping claims of absolute immunity even from federal criminal charges.But, like the earlier motion, the newly gussied up version is lacking a key element … A citation to a single case that says state court judges have immunity from criminal prosecution when their conduct violates federal criminal statutes that apply to everyone else.[emphasis added]
Other commentators are equally unimpressed:
I would add that the most compelling argument to me is simply that misdirecting federal ICE agents and shepherding an illegal toward an exit is not an “official act” that judicial immunity might cover.
In addition, the filing of this “Memorandum” violates the Eastern District of Wisconsin federal court’s official “Local Rules of Criminal Procedure.” If you review those, available here, you will see that Local Criminal Rule 12(b)(1) was violated when Dugan filed her motion to dismiss.
That rule states that “Every motion must state the statute or rule pursuant to which it is made and must be accompanied by a supporting memorandum and, when necessary, affidavits or other documents; or a certificate of counsel stating that no brief or other supporting documents will be filed.” [emphasis added]
Obviously when Dugan’s motion to dismiss was filed it was not “accompanied by a supporting memorandum,” which ended up being filed 15 days after the fact, nor did Dugan file “a certificate of counsel stating that no brief or other supporting documents will be filed.” So there’s that.
Second, a new video has been released by the local sheriff’s office allegedly showing how Judge Dugan helped the illegal alien escape from ICE.
Conservative Brief reports: Video Shows Milwaukee Judge Interacting With ICE Agents Before Migrant Arrest:
A newly released video shows Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan speaking with federal agents outside her courtroom as they waited to arrest an illegal immigrant to finish his court appearance.Eduardo Flores-Ruiz appeared in court on April 18, facing battery and domestic abuse charges related to a dispute with his roommates, according to a criminal complaint. That incident brought him to the attention of federal authorities, who subsequently discovered he was in the country without legal documentation, WTMJ-TV reported.Flores-Ruiz was taken into custody by federal agents shortly after exiting the courtroom. Prosecutors allege that Dugan aided his attempt to evade arrest by helping him leave the courthouse through a restricted exit normally reserved for jurors and by distracting the agents.They further claim she redirected the agents to speak with the chief judge, allowing Flores-Ruiz time to slip away…Additional footage shows Flores-Ruiz entering an elevator and exiting the courthouse, followed by a federal agent. Outside, surveillance video captures [Flores-Ruiz] running before agents ultimately apprehended [Flores-Ruiz] on 10th Street, the outlet notes.Federal agents arrested Dugan at the courthouse one week later and charged [Dugan] with concealing an individual to prevent arrest and obstructing justice.
You can watch the video here (click on the video):
Conservative Brief continues:
Last month, following Dugan’s arrest, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued an administrative order directing her to be “temporarily relieved of her official duties.”The order says that Dugan “is temporarily prohibited from exercising the powers of a circuit court judge in the State of Wisconsin.”The state Supreme Court said that the ruling would be in force “until further order of the court.”U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi blasted Dugan’s actions on Fox’s “America Reports.”“We could not believe that a judge really did that,” Bondi said. “You cannot obstruct a criminal case. And really, shame on her. It was a domestic violence case of all cases, and she’s protecting a criminal defendant over victims of crime.”Bondi said Flores-Ruiz beat up two people, “a guy and a girl.”“[He] beat the guy, hit the guy 30 times, knocked him to the ground, choked him, beat up a woman so badly; they both had to go to the hospital,” she said.
Third: Well, that did not stop 138 former federal and state judges from moving to file an amicus curiae, or friend-of-the-court, brief in Dugan’s case, arguing that she should indeed get judicial immunity. You can review that brief here, but first, a couple comments:
Although the amici’s “disclosure statement,” available here, does indeed list 138 judges who are the amici on the brief, only seven (7) of the listed judges are actual Article III federal judges, who are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, are imbued with life tenure, and who cannot be fired (only impeached by Congress). Those judges are:
This is not to belittle state court judges, who have a key role to play in our complex system of federalism, nor the federal magistrate or bankruptcy judges, who also have key roles to play federally, but they are not at the same level as Article III federal District or Appellate Circuit Judges.
But to me this indicates that this amicus brief is of somewhat limited value (in light of “138 judges” in support), especially as concerns complex questions of federal judicial immunity for official acts.
X commentators agree:
We will certainly keep you posted as this case winds its way through the federal criminal system.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY