A federal judge’s recent ruling has set a significant precedent in the ongoing discussion about judicial immunity and federal immigration enforcement. In a decision that is likely to reverberate across legal circles, Judge Lynn Adelman of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin rejected an argument made by Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah C. Dugan, who claimed judicial immunity against criminal charges tied to her alleged interference with immigration enforcement efforts.
The case arose from an incident in April 2025, where Dugan allegedly obstructed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from arresting a noncitizen defendant outside her courtroom. According to federal prosecutors, Dugan asserted that the agents needed a judicial warrant and subsequently facilitated the defendant’s exit via a non-public passage, suggesting he could appear remotely for future proceedings. These actions led to charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1071 for concealing a person from arrest, as well as under 18 U.S.C. § 1505 for obstructing federal immigration procedures conducted by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (JURIST).
Judge Adelman firmly dismissed Dugan’s motion to dismiss the indictment. Although judges generally enjoy immunity from civil suits, Adelman made clear that such immunity does not extend to criminal liability. He clarified that judicial acts, even if performed under the guise of official duty, cannot shield an individual from prosecution if those acts serve an unlawful purpose. This interpretation pivots on the notion that immunity does not encompass actions undertaken with corrupt intent.
Furthermore, arguments related to the Tenth Amendment and federalism were deemed to require extensive factual scrutiny, inappropriate for adjudication at this early stage. Also, there was no identified ambiguity in the charging statutes that could be construed as creating a constitutional conflict, effectively undermining the application of the constitutional avoidance doctrine.
This decision aligns with an earlier recommendation by a magistrate judge, setting the stage for a further hearing in September. The case highlights an ongoing tension between state and federal authorities, particularly regarding immigration enforcement, an area fraught with political and legal complexities.
The implications of this ruling are both immediate and profound, as it underscores the limits of judicial immunity in the face of potential criminal actions, and affirms the primacy of federal statutory obligations over individual interpretations of judicial authority.