Magistrate: Trial Should Go On For WI Judge Accused Of Helping Illegal Alien Flee
U.S. Magistrate Nancy Joseph found Judge Hannah Dugan’s arguments to dismiss her federal criminal case 'unconvincing.'U.S. Magistrate Nancy Joseph found Judge Hannah Dugan’s arguments to dismiss her federal criminal case 'unconvincing.'Federal judge just dealt some bad news to Wisconsin judge who allegedly helped illegal alien evade ICE
Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan was indicted by a federal grand jury in May on charges of concealing a person from arrest and obstruction of the law.
Dugan — who has been characterized by Democratic lawmakers both as a courtroom hero and as a victim of the Trump administration — is desperate to avoid going to trial for allegedly helping Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an illegal alien from Mexico charged with three misdemeanor counts of battery, get away from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Dugan, whose actions on April 18 were largely caught on courthouse cameras, evidently figured the Supreme Court's ruling in Trump v. United States condemned by Democrats last summer was her ticket out of trouble.
'This, however, is not a civil case.'
Citing the court's determination that the president "may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts," lawyers for the Milwaukee judge claimed in a May 14 motion to dismiss the case that "the government cannot prosecute Judge Dugan because she is entitled to judicial immunity for her official acts." Dugan's lawyers suggested further that her prosecution violates the limits of federal power under the 10th Amendment.
A federal judge suggested otherwise this week.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph recommended on Monday that Dugan's motion to dismiss be denied and torpedoed the Milwaukee judge's arguments for dismissal one by one.
RELATED: Courthouse footage spells trouble for Wisconsin judge accused of helping illegal alien evade ICE
"It is well-established and undisputed that judges have absolute immunity from civil lawsuits for monetary damages when engaging in judicial acts," wrote Joseph. "This, however, is not a civil case. And review of the case law does not show an extension of this established doctrine to the criminal context."
'Trump says nothing about criminal immunity for judicial acts.'
"Does judicial immunity shield Dugan from prosecution because the indictment alleges she violated federal criminal law while performing judicial duties? The answer is no," wrote Joseph.
The federal judge underscored that there is "no firmly established absolute judicial immunity barring criminal prosecution of judges for judicial acts."
Joseph also made mince meat out of Dugan's attempt to use Trump to avoid criminal prosecution for alleged improper conduct within her courtroom.
— (@)
"While Dugan asserts that Trump simply extended to the president the same immunity from prosecution that judges already have, this argument makes a leap too far. Trump says nothing about criminal immunity for judicial acts," wrote Joseph.
"And in Fitzgerald, while the Supreme Court looked to the historical jurisprudence regarding civil judicial immunity, the Court was clear that the grant of absolute immunity for civil damages for 'outer perimeter' acts of the president was due to the 'special nature of the president's constitutional office and functions,'" added Joseph.
Joseph further recommended that the court declines Dugan's invitation to dismiss the indictment on the canon of constitutional avoidance.
RELATED: Trump fighting 'unconstitutional power grab' by Obama judge who reopened the floodgates
While the U.S. magistrate judge made abundantly clear that Dugan's motion to dismiss has no legs to stand on, the decision rests with U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman.
As Blaze News previously reported, Adelman is a Clinton-appointed U.S. district judge and a former Democratic state senator with a history of attacking President Donald Trump, claiming, for instance, that the president makes no effort "to enact policies beneficial to the general public" and behaves like an "autocrat."
Dugan, relieved of her duties as a judge in April by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, was originally scheduled to go to trial later this month, but Adelman took the trial date off the calendar last month pending the outcome of her motion to dismiss.
"We are disappointed in the magistrate judge's non-binding recommendation, and we will appeal it," Dugan attorney Steven Biskupic said in a statement obtained by 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."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
In ‘Judicial Power Grab,’ Wisconsin Supreme Court Twists Words To Strike Down 1849 Lifesaving Law
‘It is the court’s duty to adhere to the law whether we "like" the answer or not,' the dissenting justice noted.Wisconsin Supreme Court puts Democratic governor in his place with unanimous ruling
The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that Democratic Gov. Tony Evers "breached his constitutional boundaries" when he partially vetoed and modified substantive portions of a bill in a literacy package last year.
Evers clearly did not appreciate being put in his place.
In the wake of the ruling, Evers claimed that the majority-liberal court's decision was "unconscionable."
Republicans, meanwhile, celebrated the ruling, in one instance throwing leftists' NoKings hashtag back at them.
State Sen. Julian Bradley (R) noted that the governor's "ridiculous and unlawful veto that held up money to teach kids to read has been UNANIMOUSLY ruled unconstitutional," adding that "even the far left-wing justices couldn't find a way to justify @GovEvers' actions. #NoKings."
Shot
Wisconsin's Republican-led legislature sued Evers in April 2024 over his partial veto of a bill intended to help fund literacy programs in the Badger State.
Senate Bill 971 empowered the GOP-controlled state Joint Committee on Finance to direct $50 million set aside in the biennial budget to specific Department of Public Instruction programs created after the budget bill passed, including the literacy coaching program, the DPI's Office of Literacy, and grants for early literacy curriculum.
While Evers approved SB 971, he improperly exercised partial-veto power to strike certain sections of the legislation in part and others in full that he claimed overly complicated "the allocation of funding related to literacy programs in Wisconsin by creating multiple appropriations for what could be accomplished with one."
'Wisconsin families are the real winners here.'
The Democratic governor suggested further that his actions would ensure greater flexibility in meeting the "investment needs for coaches, grants, and professional development alike."
While Evers may partially veto an appropriation bill under Article V, Section 10(1)(b) of the Wisconsin Constitution, this was not an appropriations bill.
The Republican legislators' complaint noted that if the governor mistakenly believed SB 971 was an appropriations bill, "he should have requested the legislature recall the bill in order to pass both houses of the legislature with the proper vote." After all, any bill that appropriates funds must pass both chambers with a roll-call vote — something that had not taken place in this case.
The complaint noted further that the unconstitutional partial veto of SB 971 left the legislature in a dilemma: While the JCF wanted to fund the appropriate literacy programs, "any money directed under the partially vetoed version of [SB 971] might (but should not) be treated by DPI as money that can be used by the Office of Literacy for any nondescript 'literacy program' of DPI's invention."
Chaser
The Wisconsin Supreme Court sided with the Republican legislature against Evers Wednesday and torpedoed his narrative concerning the JCF, which he suggested had been wrong to withhold funds.
The court noted that the Wisconsin Constitution "does not authorize the governor to partially veto a non-appropriation bill, which the governor may veto only in its entirety."
"We hold the governor breached his constitutional boundaries because the bill he partially vetoed was not an appropriation bill," said the ruling. "We also hold JCF did not improperly withhold funds the legislature appropriated to JCF."
As a result of the court's decision, SB 971 as passed by the state legislature — without Evers' changes — is the law.
The Associated Press suggested that the Wisconsin Supreme Court's ruling might also result in the legislature pushing budget and other spending bills in a similar manner to get around Evers' future partial vetoes, thereby securing greater control over spending.
State Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R) and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R) said in a joint statement that the ruling "is a rebuke of the Governor’s attempt to break apart a bipartisan literacy-funding bill and JCF's constitutional authority to give supplemental funding to agencies."
"While the governor wanted to play politics with money earmarked for kids' reading programs, it is encouraging to see the court put an end to this game. Wisconsin families are the real winners here," they added.
Evers did his best to spin his efforts and pin the holdup of funds on Republicans, writing, "I will never apologize for fighting for our kids and our schools. Not today, not ever."
"Twelve lawmakers should not be able to obstruct resources that were already approved by the full legislature and the governor to help get our kids up to speed and ensure they have the skills they need to be successful," continued Evers. "It is unconscionable that the Wisconsin Supreme Court is allowing the legislature's indefinite obstruction to go unchecked."
The Democratic governor urged the JCF to immediately release the $50 million before the money goes back into the state's general fund next week.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Same-Day Registration Is Too Easily Gamed By Leftists
Same-day registration has become a way to flood the zone with mystery voters — officials lack the time to validate registrations.SCOTUS: Wisconsin Supreme Court Violated A Catholic Charity’s First Amendment Rights
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday that the Wisconsin Supreme Court violated a Catholic charity’s First Amendment Rights. The case involved the Catholic Charities Bureau (CCB), which is the charitable arm of the Diocese of Superior in Wisconsin. Part of the CCB’s mission is offering a variety of philanthropic services — including to non-Catholics. As […]Power-Grabbing WI Judges Are Learning From Rogue Federal Jurists
Three Badger State judges have been accused of compromising the public's trust through their words and actions.Courthouse footage spells trouble for Wisconsin judge accused of helping illegal alien evade ICE
Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan was indicted by a federal grand jury last week on charges of concealing a person from arrest and obstruction of the law.
Dugan, relieved of her duties as a judge last month by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, could land up to six years in prison if convicted for allegedly helping Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an illegal alien from Mexico charged with three misdemeanor counts of battery, get away from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Judging from the courthouse footage recently obtained from Milwaukee County by WISN-TV through an open records request, her defense has its work cut out.
The federal indictment alleges that Dugan committed multiple "affirmative acts" to assist Flores-Ruiz evade arrest following his pre-trial April 18 appearance in her courtroom, including:
- confronting members of an ICE task force and "falsely telling them they needed a judicial warrant to effectuate the arrest of E.F.R.";
- directing all members of the task force to leave the public hallway outside her courtroom and to go to the chief judge's office;
- addressing the illegal alien's criminal case off the record while ICE agents were waiting in the chief judge's office;
- "directing E.F.R. and his counsel to exit Courtroom 615 through a non-public jury door"; and
- advising Flores-Ruiz's lawyer that the illegal alien could appear by Zoom for his next court date.
The original FBI charging document goes into far more detail, drawing on witness testimony and other inputs.
The footage appears to corroborate a number of the allegations made in both documents.
— (@)
In the footage, Dugan can be seen confronting federal agents in the hallway outside her courtroom, then directing them away to speak to the chief judge.
The FBI charging document notes that after learning of the presence of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, Dugan and another judge approached members of the arrest team in the public hallway.
The document notes further that Dugan, who was "visibly upset and had a confrontational, angry demeanor," told the deportation officer to leave the courthouse. After the officer indicated he had an administrative warrant, Dugan allegedly suggested that he instead needed a judicial warrant.
The judge then allegedly ordered the deportation officer and other federal agents to report to the chief judge's office.
'Hannah Dugan should be barred from ever serving as a judge again.'
Seizing upon the distraction, the Mexican national and his attorney can be seen in the video sneaking out of Dugan's courtroom through a jury door not open to the public.
Additional footage obtained by WISN shows Flores-Ruiz take off running upon exiting the building while federal agents gave chase.
Despite Dugan's alleged efforts, law enforcement was ultimately able to capture Flores-Ruiz. The illegal alien reportedly remains in federal custody.
The Department of Homeland Security previously told Blaze News, "Judge Dugan intentionally misdirected ICE agents away from this criminal illegal alien to obstruct the arrest and try to help him evade arrest. Thankfully, our FBI partners chased down this illegal alien, arrested him and removed him from American communities."
Dugan pleaded not guilty during her arraignment in federal court on May 15.
After seeing the footage, Republican Rep. Tom Tiffany (Wisc.) stated, "Hannah Dugan should be barred from ever serving as a judge again. A judge who puts criminal illegal aliens above victims has no place in our courts."
Last week, Dugan's attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, claiming that "the government cannot prosecute Judge Dugan because she is entitled to judicial immunity for her official acts. Immunity is not a defense to the prosecution to be determined later by a jury or court; it is an absolute bar to the prosecution at the outset."
'These plainly were judicial acts for which she has absolute immunity.'
Her attorneys cited the Supreme Court's July 1, 2024, ruling in Trump v. United States, where a 6-3 majority determined that the president "may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts."
Dugan's attorneys noted that even if "Judge Dugan took the actions the complaint alleges, these plainly were judicial acts for which she has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution."
While she had no luck with her motion to dismiss, Dugan landed an anti-Trump judge with an apparent ax to grind.
Blaze News previously reported that Lynn Adelman, the Clinton-appointed U.S. district judge presiding over Dugan's case, is a former Democratic state senator with a history of attacking President Donald Trump, claiming, for instance, that the president makes no effort "to enact policies beneficial to the general public" and behaves like an "autocrat."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com