Judge Denies Milwaukee Judge’s Motion to Dismiss in ICE Obstruction Case
“…instead, all events arose from her unilateral, nonjudicial, and unofficial actions outside the role of a Wisconsin state judge by obstructing a federal immigration matter over which she had no authority,”
U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman rejected Judge Hannah C. Dugan of the Milwaukee County Circuit Court’s motion to dismiss the case against her, alleging she helped an illegal alien evade ICE.
Dugan claimed she has judicial immunity.
“Ultimately, as the Supreme Court has stated, ‘the official seeking absolute immunity bears the burden of showing that such immunity is justified for the function in question,'” explained Adelman. “Defendant has not done so here.”
Stacey wrote a piece in May about Adelman, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton, and has a history of liberal bias.
Well, it looks like Adelman’s history won’t be a problem.
A federal grand jury indicted Dugan in May after two witnesses saw her helping Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican native, escape ICE and avoid arrest.
Dugan faces two charges:
- Concealing a person from arrest
- Obstructing removal proceedings of the Department of Homeland Security
Dugan’s attorneys argued:
(1) she enjoys absolute judicial immunity for the official acts alleged in the indictment; (2) this prosecution violates the Tenth Amendment and the Constitution’s vertical separation of powers by intruding on the authority of state judges to manage their own courtrooms and proceedings; and (3) §§ 1071 and 1505 should be construed so as to avoid the constitutional issues she raises. (R. 21 at 2.)
However, the Supreme Court has given “judges immunity from civil liability, no such rule has been established in the criminal context.”
The judge also shot down the Tenth Amendment claim because it “required the assessment of disputed facts and characterization of the events underlying the indictment, which could not be done on a motion to dismiss.”
Dugan lost the constitutional avoidance argument since she did not identify any “ambiguity in the charging statutes.”
However, let’s focus on the immunity argument, particularly in light of the ruling this morning regarding President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against Maryland judges.
“The government further contends that, even if a doctrine of immunity for judicial acts existed, the evidence in this case will show that defendant went well beyond her judicial role; instead, all events arose from her unilateral, nonjudicial, and unofficial actions outside the role of a Wisconsin state judge by obstructing a federal immigration matter over which she had no authority,” wrote Adelman.
Adelman reminded Dugan that her charges are “specific violations of federal criminal law.”
In other words, Dugan’s actions did not fall under judicial acts.
Adelman provided a history of judicial immunity, and guess what? All the results found immunity for civil charges, but not criminal charges. In fact, all of them seem to stress that judges “are subject to criminal prosecutions as are other citizens.”
“Thus, while the Court has declined to grant judicial immunity in the context of a criminal civil rights violation, and cited 18 U.S.C. § 242 as an example of a statute that might be used, the Court has never suggested that judges are immune from prosecution for other crimes involving official acts,” stressed Adelman.
You are not untouchable because you are a judge. While the U.S. District Court in Maryland dismissed the lawsuit, Judge Thomas Cullen reminded his colleagues that the judicial branch is equal to the legislative and executive branches and is not above the rules.
[Featured image via YouTube]
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Remove her from any power and quit paying
She is already removed. She was suspended four months ago, and is now just a criminal defendant.
She is on administrative leave and still being paid. That should stop immediately.
And who should do that? As far as I can tell, the only ways to remove her from office altogether, and thus stop paying her, are:
1. Action by the state Supreme Court. But we lost the majority on the court in the last election a few months ago. It’s now controlled by the Dems, and they’re not going to remove her before she’s convicted. At least they did have the decency to suspend her; I don’t think we can expect more from them.
2. Impeachment by the House, then a senate trial, followed by a two-thirds vote to remove her. Dems have more than a third of the senate, so there’s no way that can happen before she’s convicted.
3. Recall election. That takes significant time, probably longer than it will take to convict her; and there’s no guarantee that her constituents, who are mostly Dems, would vote to recall her without a conviction.
Impeachment by the House. I didn’t say what would happen, I said what should happen.
Oh, and there’s also removal by a 2/3 vote of both the house and senate, which is even less likely than 2/3 of just the senate, so I didn’t bother listing it.
I don’t believe Wisconsin has a provision for a recall election of a Judge. Probably wouldn’t happen anyways.
No one is above the law.
Keep reminding them over and over.
Shove it down their throat and make them eat every single word.
Kill them with their own cliche
I almost mistook your avatar for Millhouse
I’m not sure if I should take that as a compliment, or apologize….
Apologize and make it a long drawn out explanation as to why we are all idiots in as condescending a manner as possible.
Not forgetting to tell us we are the ones in the wrong 😂
So! I’m not alone!
NO QUEENS!
Congress can fix this.
No, it can’t. Not that there’s anything to fix, but supposing there were what could Congress do?
not sure what WI state law is like
but they can impeach and remove her ….
that is how they can fix it.
Congress can’t do anything to her.
These are actions by a state judge, not a federal judge. Congress has little authority here (other than passing the applicable criminal law here).
Just because she burst out of her courtroom wearing a robe does not exonerate her from her criminal actions, i.e., berating the ICE agents in the hallway and then shepherding the illegal guy out of a restricted access exit. Obstruction, pure and simple.
As a life-long Cheesehead, well acquainted with the lean of former (D) state senator Lynn Adelman, I am completely surprised by his judicial conclusion.
I would have bet a couple of brats n’ beers he would have weaseled around and found a way to exonerate Dugan.
I am pleasantly surprised as I thought there was no way another judge, particularly a leftist like judge Adleman, would allow this to go forward. He is right. Even in light of judicial immunity a judge can’t use that as an excuse to openly break the law even if it is in a courtroom.
Ultimately the ‘I’m a Judge and have immunity for all my actions’ argument was doomed to fail. I was leaning towards this decision at the appellate level v district level and happy to be surprised. A lefty Judge didn’t use the opportunity to demonstrate TDS and issue a Cray Cray ruling as an audition for the next d/prog administration.
And what’s always left out of this conversation is the reason the defendant was in her courtroom in the first place. He was charged with violently beating (is that redundant?) his 2 roommates. The last I heard was she had dismissed their case without telling them in order to rescue him through the back door.
djt honest push to restore some amount of civility is forcing leftists to worry about being found out for bad decisions ,,whether in their personal lives or professional lives
maga