• Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan’s efforts to dismiss federal charges for allegedly helping an undocumented immigrant evade ICE agents were rejected by a magistrate judge Monday. The court found that judicial immunity does not shield criminal conduct—even if it occurred during official duties. The case now heads to U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman for final review.

MILWAUKEE, WI (TDR) — A federal magistrate judge has recommended that the criminal case against Wisconsin Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan move forward, ruling that Dugan cannot use judicial immunity to shield herself from federal prosecution for allegedly obstructing immigration enforcement.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph, in a 37-page opinion filed Monday in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, rejected Dugan’s attempt to dismiss the case. Dugan, who pleaded not guilty, is accused of knowingly helping an undocumented immigrant escape arrest by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and interfering with federal removal proceedings—charges that could result in prison time if she’s convicted.

Timeline and Legal Background

Dugan was indicted on May 13, 2025, for allegedly helping undocumented immigrant Eduardo Flores-Ruiz evade ICE after he appeared in her courtroom on a domestic violence matter. The following day, Dugan’s attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that she was immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken as part of her judicial duties. Flores-Ruiz was later arrested by federal agents.

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Dugan “intervened in a law enforcement matter outside the bounds of her authority” and misused her position to hinder ICE enforcement. Prosecutors said her actions were “corrupt,” and warned that allowing her to evade prosecution would “set a dangerous precedent.”

Court Rejects Immunity Argument

Joseph stated unequivocally that judicial immunity—long recognized in civil suits—does not extend to criminal prosecution. She cited past cases, including the 2008 “Kids for Cash” scandal, where judges were convicted of criminal conduct committed while performing official duties.

“Judicial immunity does not shield Dugan from prosecution because the indictment alleges she violated federal criminal law while performing judicial duties,” Joseph wrote. “There is no firmly established absolute judicial immunity barring criminal prosecution of judges for judicial acts.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

Dugan’s legal team had also cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling that President Trump has broad immunity for official acts taken while in office. They argued this logic should extend to judges. Joseph disagreed, calling the comparison “unconvincing” and “unsupported by precedent.”

“The unique role of the president cannot be analogized to other government officials for purposes of immunity,” she wrote.

Separation of Powers, Amicus Support, and Next Steps

Dugan’s attorneys also raised a 10th Amendment argument, claiming the federal indictment unlawfully interferes with Wisconsin’s ability to govern its courts. Joseph rejected this, saying such constitutional concerns should be addressed at trial.

“Whether Dugan violated these statutes as the government accuses, or whether she was merely performing her judicial duties as Dugan asserts, these are questions for a jury,” she concluded.

The recommendation now moves to U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, who will decide whether to adopt Joseph’s findings.

Meanwhile, debate over the indictment continues in the legal community. On May 30, more than 130 former judges filed an amicus brief supporting Dugan’s motion to dismiss, warning that the prosecution could “erode judicial independence.”

A second amicus brief filed June 9 argued against dismissal, emphasizing that federal agents must be able to enforce immigration law without interference from state officials.

On Monday, Judge Joseph formally granted the motions for both amicus briefs to be accepted into the case record.

Defense Response and Appeal

Dugan’s attorney, Steven Biskupic, a former U.S. Attorney, signaled the defense will appeal the recommendation.

“We are disappointed in the magistrate judge’s non-binding recommendation, and we will appeal it,” Biskupic told The Associated Press. “This is only one step in what we expect will be a long journey to preserve the independence and integrity of our courts.”

A Precedent-Setting Case?

Legal scholars say the outcome of U.S. v. Dugan could reshape the boundaries of judicial authority and federal enforcement powers. While criminal prosecution of judges is rare, this case raises fundamental questions about when official conduct crosses the line into unlawful interference.

Should judges be immune from prosecution for actions taken during court proceedings—or is Dugan’s case a clear abuse of authority? Let us know in the comments.

Follow The Dupree Report on YouTube

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10