A federal judge rejected the defense’s claims of judicial immunity and violation of separation of state and federal powers.
A federal judge in Wisconsin has turned down Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan’s bid to dismiss her case, clearing the way for a trial on charges that she obstructed immigration officers who came to her courtroom to make an arrest.
In an opinion issued on Aug. 26, Judge Lynn Adelman of the Eastern District of Wisconsin rejected Dugan’s argument that her conduct was protected under the doctrine of judicial immunity, which generally shields jurists from being sued for actions taken in their official capacity.
“There is no basis for granting immunity simply because some of the allegations in the indictment describe conduct that could be considered ‘part of the judge’s job,’” Adelman wrote in the 27-page opinion. “The same is true in the bribery prosecutions, concededly valid, where the judges were prosecuted for performing official acts intertwined with bribery.”
Adelman also dismissed the defense’s attempt to link the case to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling last summer that President Donald Trump is at least presumptively immune from criminal prosecution for official acts.
That decision, Adelman noted, was meant to safeguard the independence and effective functioning of the executive branch and to make sure the president can carry out constitutional duties without undue caution—concerns that are unique to the presidency and “do not arise when one of the nation’s many judges is subject to prosecution.”
The federal judge further rejected Dugan’s argument that her arrest and prosecution violated the separation between state and federal powers under the U.S. Constitution.
Still, Adelman acknowledged that Dugan did raise “some very real concerns” about judicial immunity. For instance, he pointed to a hypothetical question of whether a state judge could be prosecuted for thwarting a planned federal immigration arrest by ordering an illegal immigrant into custody to answer for state charges.
Federal prosecutors responded to this question by saying that judges with common sense would not violate the criminal law if they “are in good faith carrying out their required duties.” Adelman, however, called the response “unsatisfying.”
By Bill Pan
