The Trump administration is pushing back hard against Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan’s efforts to have federal obstruction charges against her dismissed.
In a filing on Monday, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) argued that Dugan’s motion to dismiss relies on an inaccurate and unsupported narrative, claiming that the judge is trying to claim a kind of immunity from prosecution that has no legal basis.
Judge Dugan, 65, was indicted last month after allegedly helping an undocumented immigrant evade federal authorities. This happened shortly after he appeared in her courtroom for a domestic abuse case.
In response, Dugan filed a motion to have the charges dismissed, arguing that, like the President, judges should be immune from prosecution for their official acts while in office. However, the DOJ disagrees with this claim, pointing out that no case has ever resulted in the dismissal of charges on these grounds.
The DOJ’s Counterarguments
In its response, the DOJ argues that dismissing the charges based on judicial immunity would set an unprecedented and dangerous precedent. It claims that if Dugan’s motion were accepted, it would allow judges to obstruct federal law enforcement without fear of legal consequences.
According to the DOJ, this could open the door for judges to interfere with federal officers beyond the courtroom, leading to chaos.
The DOJ also criticizes Dugan’s arguments, saying she incorrectly applies civil law principles to her case and cites no legal authority to support her claims. They pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that judges are not immune from criminal liability, citing the 1974 ruling in O’Shea v. Littleton, which affirmed that judges can face prosecution when they commit crimes.
Support for Dugan
Dugan’s supporters, including more than 130 former state and federal judges, have rallied to her side. In a brief filed on May 30, these judges argued that prosecuting Dugan represents an attack on judicial independence and could set a troubling precedent for the future.
The brief stated that the charges against Dugan could undermine the ability of judges to perform their duties without fear of retaliatory prosecution.
DOJ’s Take on Dugan’s Actions
The DOJ also challenged Dugan’s version of events, which suggested that federal agents tried to “commandeer” a state courtroom. The DOJ insists that their actions were planned and orderly, with video and audio recordings expected to prove that Dugan’s claims are false.
According to the DOJ, the agents were not in the courtroom when Dugan took the bench, and her interference began when she left her courtroom to confront federal agents in a public hallway.
In essence, the DOJ is arguing that Dugan’s actions were not judicial in nature and overstepped her authority. They claim that nothing in the indictment or expected trial evidence supports her assertion that federal agents disrupted the court’s docket.
The Trump administration’s response to Dugan’s motion emphasizes that judges are not above the law and that allowing judicial immunity in criminal cases would create a dangerous precedent.
As the legal battle continues, both sides are preparing for a trial that could have broader implications for the independence of the judiciary and the accountability of public officials.
