Wisconsin judge claims 'absolute immunity,' calls DOJ indictment an 'ugly innovation'
The legal team representing a Wisconsin judge accused of helping a man evade immigration authorities recently expanded their motion to dismiss the case.
Judge Hannah Dugan's attorneys say that she is entitled to judicial immunity for her official acts and that the federal government overstepped its authority by arresting and charging her. Additionally, the legal team asserts in its memo that the charges violate the Constitution's Tenth Amendment and the principle of separation of powers.
They further argue that Dugan can be charged for conduct that is "wholly unrelated" to her duties as a judge, such as taking bribes or violating someone's constitutional rights. Dugan is not accused of doing either of those things in this case.
"The indictment itself is an ugly innovation. Its dismissal will not be," Dugan's attorneys write in the memo.
The Wisconsin judge is accused of helping illegal immigrant Eduardo Flores-Ruiz evade plainclothes ICE agents who were allegedly attempting to serve him a warrant.
A federal indictment claims Dugan "falsely" told the agents that they needed a judicial warrant and directed them to go to the chief judge's office. Dugan then addressed the case off the record instead of holding the scheduled hearing. Flores-Ruiz faces three misdemeanor battery charges. Despite Dugan's efforts, Flores-Ruiz was arrested.
The Department of Homeland Security celebrated Flores-Ruiz's arrest and slammed "activist judges" who, in the department's view, have attempted to obstruct President Donald Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration.
"Since President Trump was inaugurated, activist judges have tried to obstruct President Trump and the American people's mandate to make America safe and secure our homeland— but this judge's actions to shield an accused violent criminal illegal alien from justice is shocking and shameful," Assistant Secretary Dept. of Homeland Security Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement.
Footage released last week appears to show Dugan interacting with the ICE agents in a hallway before allegedly escorting Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out a private exit.
On May 13, a grand jury indicted Dugan on federal charges of concealing a person from arrest and obstruction of justice. Dugan pleaded not guilty and is scheduled to go to trial in July. If found guilty of both charges, she could face up to six years in prison and $350,000 in fines.
Mastantuono, Coffee & Thomas, the law firm representing Dugan, did not respond to a Fox News Digital request for comment in time for publication.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
27 minutes ago
List of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' removed from US government website following criticism
WASHINGTON -- A widely anticipated list of ' sanctuary jurisdictions' no longer appears on the Department of Homeland Security's website after receiving widespread criticism for including localities that have actively supported the Trump administration's hard-line immigration policies. The department last week published the list of the jurisdictions. It said each one would receive formal notification the government deemed them uncooperative with federal immigration enforcement and whether they're believed to be in violation of any federal criminal statutes. The list was published Thursday on the department's website but on Sunday there was a 'Page Not Found" error message in its place. The list was part of the Trump administration's efforts to target communities, states and jurisdictions that it says aren't doing enough to help its immigration enforcement agenda and the promises the president made to deport more than 11 million people living in the U.S. without legal authorization. The list is being constantly reviewed and can be changed at any time and will be updated regularly, a DHS senior official said. 'Designation of a sanctuary jurisdiction is based on the evaluation of numerous factors, including self-identification as a Sanctuary Jurisdiction, noncompliance with Federal law enforcement in enforcing immigration laws, restrictions on information sharing, and legal protections for illegal aliens,' the official said in a statement. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said on Fox News' 'Sunday Morning Futures' that there had been anger from some officials about the list. However, she didn't address why it was removed. 'Some of the cities have pushed back,' Noem said. 'They think because they don't have one law or another on the books that they don't qualify, but they do qualify. They are giving sanctuary to criminals.' The list, which was riddled with misspellings, received pushback from officials in communities spanning from urban to rural and blue to red who said the list doesn't appear to make sense. In California, the city of Huntington Beach made the list even though it had filed a lawsuit challenging the state's immigration sanctuary law and passed a resolution this year declaring the community a 'non-sanctuary city.' Jim Davel, administrator for Shawano County, Wisconsin, said the inclusion of his community must have been a clerical error. Davel voted for Trump as did 67% of Shawano County. Davel thinks the administration may have confused the county's vote in 2021 to become a 'Second Amendment Sanctuary County' that prohibits gun control measures with it being a safe haven for immigrants. He said the county has approved no immigration sanctuary policies.
Newsweek
32 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Boulder Attack Videos Show People Being Set on Fire
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Eight people were injured after a man hurled makeshift incendiary devices into a crowd at a pro-Israel event in Boulder, Colorado, on Sunday. The 45-year-old suspect, identified as Mohamed Sabry Soliman, allegedly shouted "Free Palestine" as he threw Molotov cocktails into the crowd of people gathered to remember the Israeli hostages still being held captive in Gaza. Soliman was reportedly shirtless and holding makeshift flame-throwers in each hand when he was arrested at the scene. More video of the terrorist in Boulder Colorado who attacked a pro-Israel event that was bringing awareness of American and Israeli hostages being held by Hamas. — Breaking911 (@Breaking911) June 1, 2025 Footage of the incident shows the chaos following the attack, with bystanders tending to the victims. One person can be seen lying on the ground, as others attempt to beat out the flames. Mark Michalek, an FBI special agent, said on Sunday: "It is clear that this is a targeted act of violence and the FBI is investigating this as an act of terrorism." Four women and four men, aged between 52 and 88, were wounded and hospitalized, according to Boulder Police. Newsweek has contacted Boulder Police for comment outside of regular working hours. Police officers investigate the attack in Boulder, Colorado, on Sunday. Police officers investigate the attack in Boulder, Colorado, on Sunday. David Zalubowski/AP This is a breaking story. More to follow.
Boston Globe
34 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Can elite universities remain global?
One reason the schools have arguably been caught off guard is less so: They have misread the nation. Advertisement Large and influential swaths of America The globalization of America's universities began decades ago. When Richard Levin assumed the presidency of Yale in 1993, in his inaugural address he stated that 'as we enter the 21st century, we must aspire to educate leaders for the whole world. … We must focus even more on global issues … if we are to be a world university.' For Levin, the mission was clear. In the early 18th century, Yale's mandate was to educate leaders and citizens for the region. 'By the mid-nineteenth century, our compass had become the whole nation,' he said. Now the work would be global. And Yale was far from alone in such ambitions. Advertisement From the establishment of campuses overseas to the creation of research centers and collaborations worldwide and the embrace of international students, many universities have changed dramatically in the years since Levin made those remarks. Today, For years, this embrace of international students was largely seen as in accord with the national interest. Despite pockets of protests, globalization on campus was treated as inevitable — and desirable — in many quarters. Meanwhile, the federal government maintained expansive investment in these universities — to the tune of The assumptions driving the internationalization of America's universities, however, have now changed. Many people no longer believe globalization is good for America. That change is most obvious in the MAGA movement. But the anti-Israel protests tinged with anti-American, anti-Western, and anti-capitalist messages that some international students have helped lead have alienated other Americans as well. Advertisement As a result, many universities have been caught out over their skis. Some now see a heavy international student presence less as a virtue and more as something suspect when it comes to university leaders' motives and wisdom. On university campuses, many faculty would undoubtedly disagree and argue that globalization is still a positive force for America. But with seats scarce at exclusive universities, filling them with international students is seen through a zero-sum lens. Universities may now face a decision. Do they want internationalization or federal support? Both may no longer be an option. The compact between universities and the federal government can only continue if the work of the university is seen as being in lockstep with the national interest. This isn't to say this is the end of global universities. Or of research universities. Minerva University, where I serve on the board of trustees, is unabashedly global. Eighty-five percent of students hail from countries other than the United States. All students live outside the United States for three of their four years. But Minerva doesn't take any federal money, nor is its model built around research. On the other hand, the Highly selective universities may choose to fight to retain federal support and remain global in the hopes that they can weather the next few years. Advertisement But with alternative models and the ascendance of skepticism around the merits of globalization, it seems less clear if this will be a viable strategy.
