August 27, 2025


Federal Judge Denies Wisconsin Judge Immunity in High-Profile Immigration Case

In a landmark decision, US District Court Judge Lynn Adelman has ruled that Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah C. Dugan cannot claim judicial immunity to avoid criminal charges for allegedly hindering federal immigration enforcement. This decision allows the prosecution to move forward under charges of concealing a person from arrest and obstructing Department of Homeland Security (DHS) removal proceedings.

The charges stem from an April 2025 incident where Judge Dugan is alleged to have blocked Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from arresting a noncitizen defendant at her courthouse. Federal prosecutors claim that Dugan confronted the ICE agents, insisting they needed a judicial warrant and subsequently helped the defendant to evade arrest by using a non-public exit and advising on remote court attendance for future appearances.

Judge Dugan's defense argued that her actions were protected under judicial immunity, which shields judges from liability for acts performed in their official capacity. She also contended that the federal prosecution infringed on state court authority, violating the Tenth Amendment.

However, Judge Adelman dismissed these arguments, clarifying that while judicial immunity applies to civil lawsuits, it does not protect judges from criminal prosecution. He highlighted that the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that immunity does not cover acts done with corrupt intentions.

Furthermore, Judge Adelman stated that the Tenth Amendment and federalism concerns raised by Dugan's defense required more detailed factual examination than is suitable at the motion to dismiss stage. He also found no need to narrow the interpretation of the federal statutes involved, as they were not ambiguous.

This decision aligns with a previous recommendation by a magistrate judge and sets the stage for a further hearing scheduled for September 3, 2025. The ruling has sparked a significant discussion on the limits of judicial authority and the balance between federal and state powers in immigration enforcement.