On Wednesday, May 14, 2025, the Wisconsin Examiner reported that Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan’s legal team filed a motion to dismiss federal charges against her, citing judicial immunity and constitutional violations. The motion argues that the government’s prosecution of Dugan is unprecedented and unconstitutional, asserting that her actions as a judge shield her from criminal charges.

Dugan faces federal allegations of assisting an immigrant, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, in evading federal agents during a court proceeding. According to the criminal complaint, Flores-Ruiz appeared in Dugan’s courtroom for a misdemeanor hearing. Federal agents, equipped with an administrative warrant, waited outside to arrest him. The complaint alleges that Dugan instructed Flores-Ruiz to exit through a side door to avoid the agents. However, Flores-Ruiz and his attorney left the courtroom into the hallway where the agents were stationed. A DEA agent accompanied him in an elevator, and he was arrested on the street shortly after.

The motion filed by Dugan’s attorneys emphasizes that judicial immunity protects judges from prosecution for actions taken in their official capacity. It describes the case as extraordinary, noting that Dugan was indicted for conduct allegedly occurring within or near her courtroom involving a party before her.

The filing references a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. United States, which held that official acts are immune from criminal prosecution. The motion asserts that even if the allegations against Dugan were true, her actions constituted judicial acts, granting her absolute immunity. It further argues that immunity serves as an immediate bar to prosecution, not merely a defense for trial.

Additionally, the motion contends that the prosecution infringes on the Tenth Amendment, which delineates the division of authority between federal and state governments. It claims that federal agents’ actions on April 18, 2025, when they entered the state courthouse and disrupted Dugan’s courtroom proceedings, violated Wisconsin’s sovereignty. The filing describes the federal government’s intervention as an overreach into state judicial operations, undermining the balance of power. It argues that prosecuting a sitting state judge for her courtroom conduct disrupts active judicial proceedings and interferes with her elected duties.

Dugan’s legal team asserts that the facts presented in the indictment and complaint would not hold up at trial but maintains that the case should be dismissed before reaching that stage.

The motion highlights the broader implications of the prosecution, stating that it sets a dangerous precedent by allowing federal authorities to target state judicial officials. It calls for the court to dismiss the indictment to uphold Wisconsin’s sovereignty and protect the integrity of state judicial processes.

Federal officials under the Trump administration have framed Dugan’s case as part of a broader effort to address judges who challenge immigration enforcement initiatives. The administration has cited the case as an example of its commitment to cracking down on judicial actions perceived as obstructing federal immigration policies.

 

 

Source: Wisconsin Examiner