Wisconsin Judge Who Helped Illegal Alien Avoid ICE Suffers Legal Setback in Federal Criminal Case
“A judge’s actions, even when done in her official capacity, do not bar criminal prosecution if the actions were done in violation of the criminal law.”
We have been closely monitoring the federal criminal case out of Wisconsin concerning Wisconsin state judge Hannah Dugan (pictured above), who allegedly helped an illegal alien flee ICE arrest by letting him exit her courthouse out a private back door normally inaccessible to the public:
- FBI Arrests Milwaukee Judge for Allegedly Obstructing Immigration Arrest
- Democrats Burn Their ‘No One Is Above the Law’ Card in Response to Wisconsin Judge’s Arrest
- Second Wisconsin Judge Goes Full Resistance After Arrest of Judge Accused of ICE Obstruction
- Some of Trump’s Fiercest Critics Agree That WI Judge’s Arrest was Warranted
This case is extremely important because it would cause havoc if state (or federal) judges could freely violate federal law and thwart valid prosecution of criminal illegal aliens, many of whom appear before such judges all the time and many of whom have been charged, as in this case, with very serious crimes.
Following Judge Dugan’s arrest, she was indicted by a federal grand jury on two felony charges: 18 U.S. Code § 1071 – Concealing person from arrest and 18 U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees, as Professor Jacobson explained:
The case was assigned to federal district court judge Lynn Adelman in the federal Eastern District of Wisconsin, who apparently has a history of making statements that would seem to be of assistance to Judge Dugan: Clinton-Appointed Judge Selected for Hannah Dugan’s Trial Has History of Liberal Bias
Judge Dugan’s massive legal team (of course) moved to dismiss the indictment against her, citing judicial immunity to criminal prosecution, among other grounds, Wisconsin Judge Indicted for Helping Illegal Alien Evade ICE Claims “Judicial Immunity,” but legal commentators were less than impressed by Judge Dugan’s motion papers:
Disgraced Judge Hannah Dugan filed a motion to dismiss today, on grounds of Judicial immunity
Jonathan Turley~
I can't see any basis to do that, which means her motion to dismiss will be deniedJudge Dugan faces (6) years in prison, who else besides me hopes she gets the max pic.twitter.com/uBxyfrjYLx
— @Chicago1Ray 🇺🇸 (@Chicago1Ray) May 14, 2025
More of Jonathan Turley’s reasoning:
To those lionizing Judge Dugan, where do you draw the line in a judge allegedly assisting a person to evade arrest? Could she order officers to hide him or remove him in her car trunk? Once you get down from the bench, you can quickly find yourself on a slippery slope…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) April 28, 2025
A former 22-year federal prosecutor had a hot take:
The motion to dismiss filed today by Judge Dugan's attorney in Wisconsin is so stupid it is funny.
— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) May 16, 2025
The basic reasoning for this is that almost all of the cases Judge Dugan cited in her motion to dismiss involved judges being immune from CIVIL liability, i.e., having to pay damages for civil offenses, not for criminal liability (i.e. jail) for committing outright crimes.
Of course, that didn’t stop a bunch of other (now-retired) judges from coming to Judge Dugan’s defense: Wisconsin Judge, Indicted for Helping Illegal Alien Evade ICE, Gets Support from 138 Retired Judges. As I mentioned in that post, however, only seven of those judges were actually federal district court judges, the others being state judges (mostly) who would necessarily have much less knowledge of the relevant federal legal issues.
As an aside, a helpful (and short 1 minute+) video that explains what happened with Judge Dugan on the day in question was released, and you can review it here to see what actually happened:
Here's footage of Judge Hannah Dugan sneaking an illegal immigrant out of the building. Absolutely unreal. pic.twitter.com/4Cb4lPSToB
— aka (@akafaceUS) May 26, 2025
Of course we were all wondering what would happen with Judge Dugan’s Motion to Dismiss, and now a federal magistrate judge who is helping Judge Adelman on this case has recommended to Judge Adelman that Judge Dugan’s Motion to Dismiss be DENIED:
From Breitbart News: U.S. Magistrate Says Case Can Proceed Against Wisconsin Judge Accused of Aiding Illegal Migrant:
A U.S. magistrate judge said a case can proceed against a Wisconsin judge accused of aiding an illegal migrant in evading arrest…
Dugan pleaded not guilty to federal charges, arguing that she “is immune from prosecution for actions taken in her official capacity in and around her courtroom,” per the Washington Post.
“In a nonbinding recommendation issued Monday, however, Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph recommended against dismissing the charges against Dugan, writing that ‘a judge’s actions, even when done in her official capacity, does not bar criminal prosecution if the actions were done in violation of the criminal law,’” noted the WaPo.
“Joseph went on to say that questions of whether Dugan broke the law or was ‘merely performing her judicial duties,’ as well as the fact that the two sides dispute the facts of the case, are issues that cannot be resolved within a motion to dismiss,” it added.
For those who would like more of the details on why the Motion to Dismiss is recommended for denial (which is now up to Judge Adelman for final decision), see this excellent 28-minute video with all the gory details:
Let’s hope Judge Adelman does the right this and accepts the recommendation to deny Judge Dugan’s Motion to Dismiss.
From X:
…Dugan was viewed as fortunate in her assigned judge, but she first went before Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph, who correctly denied the motion to dismiss. https://t.co/J5BAbbnp6N This will make it tougher for Judge Adelman to dismiss the case after such a well-reasoned opinion.
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) July 8, 2025
NO ONE Is Above the Law: Federal Court Nixes Judge Hannah Dugan's Bid to Dismiss Illegal Immigrant Casehttps://t.co/g57SOyleBa pic.twitter.com/qkk6I3iRzs
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) July 9, 2025
Here is that well-reasoned opinion:
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Usually people fear getting their face beaten in, in prison, but in her case it would be an improvement.
The ugly stick suffered.
Behold the archetype of the sh*tlib womb-man.
Adelman will not do the right thing. He will dismiss the case. He’s old. What does he care. He doesn’t,
Of personal interest to only me Adelman, Rehnquist, and I went to the same high school. Which one person is not like the other would be me,
lets face the facts
if she can be convicted
then karen bass and a whole lot more from the left are clearly as guilty
I just dont know if they will allow this
sure they were ready to let trump see prison,,by any means necessary,, and thankfully failed ( well, as of this writing)
but she is clearly guilty
No, they are not. As far as I know Bass has not broken any laws. This woman definitely did. Bass knows where the line is and not to get caught crossing it. So do most of them, but this woman thought she was immune. Now she’s finding out that she isn’t.
thats why we have a courts system to investigate ,,bass in this case, to see if her actions the other day amounted to threats and intimidation (against ice) when she “ordered” the feds to leave and leave now
they were being threatened by a government official
Threatened with what??? She had nothing to threaten them with. She simply “ordered” them to leave, and they said “no”.
The only threat that can be illegal is a “true threat” of violence. She didn’t threaten to beat anyone up, to shoot anyone, to do anything illegal. So no threat.
She demanded they leave and they laughed in her face, as they should have, and that was the end of the interaction.
if you are sitting at a restaurant and someone comes up to you and says leave
you must leave now
you know you would consider that a threat
That is false and ridiculous. No one would consider it a threat. And the ICE forces were not “sitting in a restaurant”.
Accurate. Just like Trump, every action is ‘run past legal’ to make sure. Unlike him, she’s a detestable Leftist who would be more than happy to see police and ICE structures and personnel burn if it would gain her one speck of power.
One might argue that obstruction of federal agents in the performance of their official duties is still a crime. If the mayor didn’t cross that line she’s nudged right up against it.
Unlike Dugan, Bass has not personally obstructed federal agents performing their official duties. Even at Macarthur Park all she did was pull a Karen and demand to speak with the manager. Her pet police chief declined to assist federal agents, but that’s not obstruction and is in accord state law (unfortunately). It also cost the city of Los Angeles millions of dollars, which her constituents will have to eat. She’s talked a lot of nonsense, but has the 1st Amendment right to do that. Obnoxious as Bass is, so far she’s colored within the lines. I will say Bovino essentially telling her to pound sand was glorious.
The humorous part is the lack of self awareness by these ‘resistance’ goons. They all say they want to defy the will of the people, ignore good faith enforcement of statutes passed by Congress, defy ‘Orange Man’ and become a heroic martyr (if only in their own minds) yet….none of them seem to have accepted the realities of martyrdom. Lots of spouting off about their conviction but very little courage to willingly accept their role in the farcical play they concocted and forced upon everyone else.
She can’t be allowed to get away with this. To me this is the “threat to democracy” the left whines about. If judges can get away with abetting a crime how different are they from criminals?
Why do we say ‘alleged’ when she’s on video committing the crime?
Because people in the USA are innocent until proven guilty.
One can state all day long what is obviously on the video(s), but one would be wrong to suggest she is guilty of anything unless and until she is formally declared guilty as the result of a legitimate criminal process.
That’s Civics 101.
This is not correct. A person is guilty as soon as they have committed an offense, even if they’re never caught. The rule is that at trial a defendant is entitled to be presumed innocent, and therefore the prosecution must refute that presumption. Therefore it’s only the judge and the jury who must start with that presumption. Everyone else is entitled to their own opinion on the matter.
The reason news stories always say “alleged” is because reporters have it drummed into their heads that they must do so for their own protection.
Once in a blue moon someone who is “obviously” guilty turns out to be innocent after all; some key piece of evidence was misrepresented or fabricated, and suddenly you have a Richard Jewell situation. If you stick to reporting what has been alleged, you’re safe from a defamation lawsuit, because regardless of what he actually did it’s 100% true that he was alleged to have committed the crime, and truth is an absolute defense. So if you make it a habit to always say “alleged” you won’t be caught out the one time it does turn out to be a mere allegation.
Think of it like the rule that there’s no such thing as an unloaded gun. Every gun is loaded, even if you unloaded it yourself an hour ago. Of course you know that 999 times out of 1000 this isn’t true; the gun is genuinely unloaded. But if you obey the rule and treat every gun as loaded you won’t be caught out the one time that it really is.
Those of us who aren’t reporters, and therefore don’t have to worry about being sued if she turns out to be innocent, can feel free to say she’s guilty; even if she turns out to be innocent she isn’t going to track us all down and sue us. But LI is big enough that it has to be careful, like every other publication.
I view it as highly unlikely, regardless of the law or the evidence, that a Leftist judge will be convicted of a crime. It would be something akin to lese majeste. However, if in order to maintain the appearance of equality under the law they do convict her of some lesser included offense; one can be positive that the penalty will NOT include real prison time and will probably be basically probation. I would love to be proved wrong.
Subotai Bahadur
Oops. Sorry. The italics were just supposed to be for the words lese majeste and end after that.
Subotai Bahadur
I like it as is.
I will decide when the italics end, Dave…. er, excuse me, Subotai.
—— HAL.
An edit comment option would be nice.
Ugly women climb to the top by any means necessary to take revenge.
After looking at her I would think she should be a supreme court justice by now.
“A judge’s actions, even when done in her official capacity, do not bar criminal prosecution if the actions were done in violation of the criminal law.”
WTF? A judge acting in her official capacity can’t commit a crime.* As soon as the judge commits a crime, she’s acting outside of her official capacity. Unless, of course, the law has been changed such that it’s now within the official capacity of a judge to break the law, but for which transgression she can still be prosecuted!
*A judge can make an error that injures a person’s rights, but an error is made when a judge makes a decision unsupported by law in a case over which she is presiding. Dugan interfered with federal law enforcement agents who weren’t involved in any case over which she was presiding.
Sounds accurate. Let’s throw a couple of hypotheticals at the theory and see what sticks
Case 1 – Judge stands up from the bench and shoots a defendant dead. Obviously not in her official capacity, and obviously will be prosecuted.
Case 2 – Judge literally throws her gavel at the defendant during sentencing, knocking him out. Also not in her official capacity, and probably will be prosecuted.
Case 3 – Judge while talking quietly to the defendant suddenly slaps him over something he says (we all know people who could cause this kind of response) – Judge is acting on the edge of official capacity, and really doubt it will be prosecuted.
Case 4 – Judge sentences a man for conspiracy over posting a meme despite the prosecution never showing injury or communication among the parties, in a case that is overthrown totally unanimously by the appeals court – Judge was acting *unfairly* within her official capacity and will not be criminally prosecuted or successfully sued personally. However, she still can be disbarred for her actions if the state bar has any nerve.
Let’s hope Judge Adelman does the right [thing] and accepts the recommendation
I’ll betcha $10 that far-left Adelman is racking his addled brain to find an excuse not to.
Well..her looks do not impress me…in the right way.
Depress me, perhaps.
We are talking about Milwaukee here. I would be astonished if she is convicted in that leftist hell hole. The presiding Federal Judge is as left as they get. Prosecutors can expect to be ruled against at every turn. Although the Federal jury pool is pulled from a wide area, I’m not hopeful.
Are 138 retired judges like 51 former intelligence officials? Asking for a friend…