Attorneys for Wisconsin state judge Hannah C. Dugan, accused of obstructing immigration agents, sought to dismiss the federal charge against her on Wednesday.
Her attorney's application by her defense attorney, who came one day after Judge Dugan was indicted by the Federal Ju trial in Milwaukee, argued that “the government cannot prosecute Judge Dugan because she is entitled to a judicial immunity for official conduct.” “Since it continued through the US common law at least in the early 17th century, judges of records are entitled to an absolute immunity for official conduct, with a few exceptions that do not apply here,” the filing added that efforts to indict the judge were “effectively completely unconstitutional and not the previous year.”
Department of Justice officials are defending the charges of Judge Dugan. They say it's at a separate exit from the hallway where the judge directed the undocumented immigrant who had appeared in her court last month and the immigration officers were waiting to arrest him. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday.
“It doesn't matter what kind of work you are doing. If you break the law, we will follow the facts. We will prosecute you,” Attorney General Pam Bondy said of the case.
Immigrant Eduardo Flores Luis was arrested outside the courthouse after a foot pursuit. Mexican immigrant Flores Lewis was illegal in the United States, federal authorities said. He was appearing in the courtroom of Dugan Court in Milwaukee County Circuit Court in connection with a domestic abuse case.
FBI agents arrested Judge Dugan a few days later and were charged with hiding someone from arrest and obstructing the lawsuit on Tuesday. She is scheduled to appear in federal court in Milwaukee on Thursday. She was temporarily removed from the bench by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, but a federal lawsuit against her is ongoing.
The incident became synonymous with the Trump administration's wider crackdown on immigration and a warning to local officials that they should not thwart deportation efforts. The Trump administration warned that prosecutors were not beyond the law, and said many Democrats, lawyers and former judges had accused it of an attack on the judiciary.
Judge Dugan's motion to dismiss the case argued that “this is not a normal criminal case, and Dugan is not a normal criminal defendant.”
Judge Dugan's lawyer wrote that the government's judge's prosecution “violates the 10th amendment and fundamental principles of federalism and jointness reflected in its amendments and the very structure of the US Constitution.”
Stephen Wright, a criminal law teacher at the University of Wisconsin Law School, said he claims that Judge Dugan is acting in his abilities as a judge.
“Just because an individual wears a robe doesn't mean he's against federal law,” he said. “However, when the allegations are made clear, the constitution gives judges a great empowerment to maintain order in their courts. So, we hope that in the coming weeks, one way for the government to prove that motivations are political in contrast to the orderly management of justice, is in the coming weeks.”
Earlier this month, more than 150 former state and federal judges signed a letter to Bondy calling Justice Dugan's arrest an attempt to intimidate the judiciary.
“This ironic effort undermines the rule of law,” the letter said, “destroys the trust that Americans have in the judges of the country, and administer justice in the courts and the land's hall of justice.”
Julie Bossman, Dan Simmons and Devlin Barrett Reports of contributions.
