On Wednesday, May 21, 2025, Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University, published an article highlighting the assignment of U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman to preside over the trial of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan.
Adelman, an 85-year-old federal judge in Wisconsin, was randomly selected to oversee the case involving Dugan, who faces accusations of obstructing federal law enforcement and aiding an undocumented immigrant’s escape.
Adelman, appointed to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton, has a extensive history in Wisconsin politics, having served 20 years in the Wisconsin Senate as a Democratic politician. During his political career, he made several unsuccessful attempts to run for Congress.
Adelman’s judicial tenure has drawn attention due to past actions and public statements. In 2020, Adelman authored a law review article in the Harvard Law & Policy Review titled “The Roberts Court’s Assault on Democracy,” where he criticized the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority and then-President Donald Trump. The article prompted a formal admonishment from the Civility Committee of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which found his remarks inconsistent with a judge’s duty to uphold public confidence in the judiciary’s impartiality.
Previously, Adelman faced criticism for a ruling in a voting identification case. He struck down a Wisconsin voter ID law before a significant election, despite a 2008 Supreme Court precedent, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, which upheld a similar law. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Adelman’s decision, emphasizing that district courts must adhere to Supreme Court precedents, regardless of personal or academic disagreement.
The assignment of Adelman to Dugan’s case has raised concerns due to its political implications. Dugan, a critic of Trump’s immigration policies, is accused of actions that some Democratic leaders have praised as heroic, while others view them as a violation of judicial responsibilities. The trial is set to take place in one of the country’s most liberal districts, with a jury drawn from that area. Adelman’s prior rebuke for political commentary and his reversal for ignoring precedent have led to questions about his suitability for the case.
Adelman’s selection underscores ongoing debates about judicial impartiality. The case follows a pattern of high-profile legal proceedings involving judges with publicized political views. For instance, in cases involving Trump, judges with past political statements have been assigned, raising similar concerns about perceived bias. Judicial ethics rules emphasize avoiding not only actual conflicts of interest but also the appearance of such conflicts to maintain public trust in the legal system.
The Dugan case is expected to address significant legal questions regarding the role of judges in federal and state systems. Adelman’s involvement, given his history, has drawn attention to the broader issue of judges maintaining neutrality. The public’s perception of fairness in this trial will likely influence trust in the judiciary, as highlighted by Turley’s critique of political commentary by judges, including recent remarks by U.S. Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
As the trial proceeds, Adelman’s past actions and the polarized nature of the case will remain under scrutiny, with implications for the judiciary’s credibility in handling politically charged matters.
