JUDGE SHIELDS ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT – Claims IMMUNITY!

Daily Report June 05,2025

Judge Hannah Dugan’s controversial defense in a Milwaukee County case could challenge the very framework of judicial immunity.

At a Glance

Judge Hannah Dugan faces charges for allegedly helping an illegal immigrant evade law enforcement.
Her attorneys claim she has “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution” for actions in her courtroom.
Legal experts dispute the notion of absolute immunity as dangerous.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has temporarily relieved Dugan of her duties, pending trial.
The case could set a national precedent on judicial immunity limits.

The Charges Against Judge Dugan

Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan is embroiled in legal concerns, facing charges that include harboring a person from arrest and obstructing federal law enforcement. Critics argue her actions could have serious implications on how federal immigration laws are enforced within state jurisdictions. The indictment claims she aided an individual, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, in avoiding arrest by misleading Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, directing them to the chief judge’s office.

Watch coverage here.

The Department of Homeland Security has criticized what it calls “activist judges” for hindering immigration enforcement. The indictment suggests Dugan deliberately misled federal agents, potentially impacting the trust between federal and state agencies. Despite these allegations, her legal team remains firm in their defense, emphasizing her commitment to her judicial duties.

/div>

Debate Over Judicial Immunity

Judge Dugan’s attorneys have put forward a motion to dismiss the prosecution, claiming “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution” for acts conducted in her role as a judge. They argue this immunity offers a shield against legal responsibility for decisions made within the courtroom. According to the legal team, their client’s treatment sets a troubling precedent for future governmental overreach. Hans von Spakovsky, a constitutional law expert, refutes this argument, suggesting immunity does not allow judges to commit illegal acts without accountability.

“We’ve read the Constitution and don’t remember the ‘judge-can-do-whatever-she-wants’ clause” – Hans von Spakovsky and Charles Stimson.

The district attorney’s office contends Dugan’s actions overstepped judicial immunity’s bounds. Dugan is not accused of taking bribes or violating constitutional rights, heightening the case’s complexity. Her defense team maintains that her conduct remains within her official duties, deserving protection under judicial immunity.

Implications of the Case

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has taken significant steps by suspending Dugan to preserve public confidence in the judiciary. This case holds potential to redefine boundaries of judicial immunity and accountability within the United States. If Dugan’s immunity claim fails, judges across the nation may face stricter scrutiny for their courtroom actions. As this legal battle unfolds, observers wait to see whether judicial immunity will continue to allow judges a wide berth in fulfilling their duties responsibly.

“Since President Trump was inaugurated, activist judges have tried to obstruct President Trump and the American people’s mandate to make America safe and secure our homeland— but this judge’s actions to shield an accused violent criminal illegal alien from justice is shocking and shameful.” – Tricia McLaughlin.

With Judge Dugan’s case garnering national attention, any ruling on her legal defenses might reverberate through courtrooms and reinforce or eliminate the traditional protections judges have long enjoyed.