Latest news with #10thAmendment
Yahoo
5 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Hannah Dugan's legal team files memo arguing for dismissal, citing Trump ruling as precedent
Lawyers representing Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan filed a memorandum May 29 arguing her federal prosecution is not allowed, citing what they say is more than 400 years of legal precedent supporting their position. The 37-page memorandum supports and expands on a motion to dismiss, which Dugan's legal team filed on May 14, the day after she was indicted on charges she helped an undocumented immigrant who was appearing in her court evade federal officers. In the filings, attorney Dean Strang and others on the high-powered legal team argue that as a judge, Dugan has "absolute immunity" for official acts in her courtroom and she cannot be charged for them. Dugan's lawyers also argue the prosecution constitutes federal overreach, violating the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which delineates states' rights. "This is an extraordinary prosecution that poses a threat to federalism and judicial independence," the filing says. "Dismissal here flows from a straightforward application of long-settled law. The indictment itself is an ugly innovation. Its dismissal will not be." The filing goes on to say: "Nothing in the Constitution allows the federal government to superintend the administration and case-by-case, daily functioning of state courts as this indictment proposes." Dugan was indicted May 13 on charges she obstructed a federal agency and helped Eduardo Flores-Ruiz escape. Flores-Ruiz, 31, was arrested following a short chase outside the courthouse. Dugan herself was arrested by the FBI at the courthouse a week later. Dugan, 66, has pleaded not guilty to the charges and currently has a trial date of July 21 before U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman. The deadline for motions is May 30. Acting U.S. Attorney Rick Frohling was not immediately available for comment. Kenneth Gale, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Milwaukee, said he does not expect prosecutors in the case to respond in the media to the filing. Federal prosecutors have until June 9 to reply to the defense's motion to dismiss and the defense must reply by June 16. Then the matter will be before U.S. Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph, who will write a report and recommendations for Adelman. Flores-Ruiz was in Dugan's court April 18 for a status conference on a misdemeanor battery case. He was charged with repeatedly hitting his roommate in the head and briefly strangling him, according to the complaint. Two women who tried to intervene also were hit, it says. Flores-Ruiz has pleaded not guilty to the battery charge and also to a federal charge that he re-entered the country after he was deported 12 years ago. Six federal officers were in the county courthouse on April 18 to arrest him. Federal prosecutors allege that Dugan helped Flores-Ruiz elude federal officers by sending the officers to the chief judge's office and allowing Flores-Ruiz and his attorney to exit a door used by jurors. That door emptied into a public hallway about 15 feet from the main entrance. A federal agent was in the hallway, spotted him and followed. Flores-Ruiz was arrested outside the courthouse. On May 21, Milwaukee County released several hours of surveillance video, some of which will likely be shown if Dugan goes to trial. In the video, Dugan and another judge are seen talking to the agents and directing them to the chief judge. In the motion to dismiss, the defense argued: "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." "The immunity and federalism issues must be resolved swiftly because the government has no basis in law to prosecute her. The prosecution against her is barred." The motion goes on to call the prosecution "virtually unprecedented and entirely unconstitutional" and calls problems with the case "legion. In support of the immunity claim, the motion cites a U.S. Supreme Court ruling focused on then former-President Donald Trump's claim of immunity from prosecution. This article will be updated. This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Judge Hannah Dugan lawyers file memo arguing for dismissal
Newsweek
7 days ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
America Needs a State Revival
Democrats and Republicans often disagree, but they have more in common than they realize—especially when they are dissatisfied with the occupant of the Oval Office. In those moments, the importance of the states—the role they play and the powers they hold—snaps into focus. But championing the states shouldn't depend on political convenience. Both parties would do well to consistently recognize the dangers of an overreaching federal government—and the benefits of more state autonomy. The sun sets behind the U.S. Capitol building on a spring day on May 24, 2025, in Washington, D.C. The sun sets behind the U.S. Capitol building on a spring day on May 24, 2025, in Washington, Founders, very familiar with tyranny under the British monarchy, understood the perils of centralized power. That's why they built a system that delegates certain necessary powers to the federal government, but retains more among states, communities, and individuals. This is the heart of the 10th Amendment. James Madison was clear in Federalist 46 that rather than being duplicative governing structures, "The federal and state governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes." Our federal government, in other words, was intended to serve only a limited set of functions. Over time, however, we've seen the federal government overstep and meddle in issues where it has less local knowledge, effectiveness, and flexibility than states. As a result, the policy areas that the federal government has encroached upon, such as education, welfare, and energy, often result in one-size-fits-all, massively expensive mandates that fail to accommodate for differences across states, and serve taxpayers poorly. Take the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which required states to implement standardized tests for grades 3-8 in order to receive federal funding. NCLB imposed uniform requirements on states and school districts, ignoring differences across states and districts and the unique circumstances of students across the country. As a result, the program didn't deliver the intended results. Despite billions in taxpayer funding, test scores remained flat years after implementation. While NCLB has been replaced with the slightly more flexible Every Student Succeeds Act, both pieces of legislation demonstrate that when the federal government attempts to solve state-level problems, the outcomes are subpar, and state innovation is stifled. While the federal government has continued to test its limits and impose itself on the states, the Constitution makes clear where boundaries exist. Federal limits have been affirmed by recent Supreme Court cases, such as West Virginia v. EPA. In that case, West Virginia challenged the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s authority to impose regulations to effectively control the state's energy policy through the Clean Power Plan. West Virginia's victory in the case reinforced state autonomy and confirmed the limited role of the federal government. States have primary authority to address energy and environmental matters within their own borders—not federal agencies. When the states are able to practice this authority, they craft policies that improve American lives and livelihoods. From welfare and workforce development policies that help people break the cycle of poverty in their families, to more effective management of natural resources, to building infrastructure, states demonstrate more efficiency and innovation than federal agencies—and they do it while keeping their budgets balanced. The states also offer a way to tame the partisanship and political division that rattle our country. The stakes are high when D.C. makes policy decisions for 340 million Americans. In contrast, policies shaped at the state and local level can reflect the values, needs, and priorities of the communities those governments serve—leading to more tailored, representative, and often less divisive solutions. As America continues to grapple with polarization and growing distrust in Washington, let's hope more leaders champion state control—and not just when it's politically convenient. The genius of the Constitution, and the Founders that designed it, was in placing power closer to the people through the states—creating a government that is more responsible, accountable, and effective. Our nation should recapture that spirit. Madison Ray is the senior director for the Center for Practical Federalism at State Policy Network. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan pleads not guilty to federal obstruction charges
May 15 (UPI) -- Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan pleaded not guilty Thursday to charges related to her alleged interference with an ICE arrest. U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Dries accepted Dugan's not guilty plea to one charge each of obstructing an official proceeding and concealing a person from arrest and concealing an individual to prevent his discovery and arrest. Dries set the next hearing in the case for July 9 and a start date for the trial on July 21. Neither Dugan, nor attorney Steve Biskupic commented on whether they believed the case would go to trial. Dugan's lawyers submitted a motion to dismiss her case Wednesday which cited judicial immunity and federal overreach as reasons her case should be dismissed, as per the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, under which her legal team purports that federal agents cannot enter a state courthouse and arrest a sitting judge. "Even if, contrary to what the trial evidence would show, Judge Dugan took the actions the complaint alleges, these plainly were judicial acts for which she has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution. Judges are empowered to maintain control over their courtrooms specifically and the courthouse generally," the dismissal notice, posted online by Courthouse News, stated. "Criminalizing the official acts of a state court judge controlling her courtroom would implicate all the concerns that motivated the 10th Amendment." Dugan was indicted on the two counts on Tuesday, related to the April 18 incident in which she allegedly misdirected federal agents to allow Eduardo Flores-Ruiz to evade arrest over his immigration status as she presided over a domestic abuse case he was involved in. She is charged with confronting federal agents in the court's hallway and escorting Flores-Ruiz out of her courtroom, although he was ultimately taken into immigration enforcement custody after a foot chase. Dugan was then arrested on April 25 as FBI Director Kash Patel said the agency believed she "intentionally misdirected federal agents" away from Flores-Ruiz. Dugan was temporarily removed from the bench by the Wisconsin Supreme Court after her arrest.
USA Today
15-05-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan files motion to dismiss federal obstruction case, citing judicial immunity
Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan files motion to dismiss federal obstruction case, citing judicial immunity Show Caption Hide Caption Milwaukee County Chief Judge Carl Ashley addresses ICE enforcement Milwaukee County Chief Judge Carl Ashley addresses ICE enforcement in the courthouse in the wake of Judge Hannah Dugan's arrest and federal charges Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan, indicted for allegedly aiding an undocumented immigrant evade ICE, filed a motion to dismiss, citing judicial immunity and federal overreach. Dugan's motion argues her actions are protected by judicial immunity, regardless of motive, and that the prosecution violates the 10th Amendment. The case raises similar issues to the 2019 case against Massachusetts Judge Shelley Joseph, whose charges were eventually dropped after Biden's election. Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan, indicted on charges of helping an undocumented immigrant elude federal authorities, filed a motion May 14 to dismiss her case, citing judicial immunity and federal overreach by prosecutors. The motion, coming less than 24 hours after Dugan was indicted by a federal grand jury, sets the stage for a legal battle ahead. The action comes even before Dugan has entered a plea, which is expected May 15. Usually, motions come later in a case, but her legal team is arguing that the issues of immunity and federalism need to be resolved immediately. "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," it said. "The immunity and federalism issues must be resolved swiftly because the government has no basis in law to prosecute her. The prosecution against her is barred." The motion goes on to call the prosecution "virtually unprecedented and entirely unconstitutional" and calls problems with the case "legion." Kenneth Gales, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office, declined to comment on the motion. The motion makes two arguments: that Judge Dugan cannot be prosecuted because she is entitled to judicial immunity for her official acts and that prosecutors were exceeding federal authority in the case. In support of the immunity claim, the motion cites a U.S. Supreme Court ruling involving then former-President Donald Trump. 'Judges are entitled to absolute immunity for their judicial acts, without regard to the motive with which those acts are allegedly performed," the motion says. In addition to immunity, the motion says the prosecution violates the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which covers states' rights. It argues the charges are a federal overreach. "The government's prosecution here reaches directly into a state courthouse, disrupting active proceedings, and interferes with the official duties of an elected judge," it says. More: Judge Hannah Dugan is citing judicial immunity in her defense. How does it work? The motion is the first legal shot filed by Dugan's high-powered defense team. Dugan is represented by four law firms. So far seven attorneys are listed on federal court file. New to her team is well-known defense attorney Dean Strang, who was featured in the Netflix documentary "Making a Murderer" about Steven Avery. It was announced earlier that former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement was joining the team, and that was confirmed in a filing. The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman. The next step will be for the government to respond to the defense motion. Depending on the ruling, the issue could end up being appealed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. The case stems from the arrest of Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, 30, at the Milwaukee County Courthouse on April 18. Flores-Ruiz was in Dugan's court on three counts of misdemeanor battery. According to the indictment and federal criminal complaint, Dugan helped Flores-Ruiz escape arrest by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers who had a warrant seeking deportation. Another judge escorted five of the six federal officers to the chief judge's chambers to show the warrant. That is when Dugan directed Flores-Ruiz and his attorney to leave her courtroom by a door reserved for jurors, according to the charges. That juror door leads out to the same hallway as the main door. One federal agent was still in the hall, saw Flores-Ruiz and his attorney leave and followed them. Agents eventually chased Flores-Ruiz down outside the courthouse and apprehended him, according to the criminal complaint. His arrest was part of a federal crackdown on undocumented immigrants by Trump officials. Federal authorities arrested Dugan in the courthouse a week later. In the motion, Dugan's team argues that everything Dugan did on April 18 is shielded because she is a judge. Even if she did what the prosecutors allege, the motion says, she cannot be prosecuted. "Judge Dugan's subjective motivations are irrelevant to immunity," the motion says. The Dugan case echoes 2019 federal charges against Massachusetts Judge Shelley Joseph, who was accused of helping an undocumented immigrant escape federal arrest under the first Trump administration. Joseph's team made an immunity claim as well. The case ultimately was dropped after Joe Biden was elected president, though Joseph still faces a hearing before the state judicial oversight commission. (This story was updated to add new information.)
Boston Globe
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Wisconsin judge accused of obstructing immigration agents seeks dismissal of case
Justice Department officials have defended their prosecution of Dugan. They say the judge directed an immigrant lacking permanent legal status who was appearing in her courtroom last month to an exit that was separate from a hallway where immigration officers were waiting to arrest him. The Justice Department did not immediately respond Wednesday to a request for comment. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'It doesn't matter what line of work you are in, if you break the law, we will follow the facts and we will prosecute you,' Attorney General Pam Bondi has said about the case. Advertisement The immigrant, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, was arrested outside the courthouse following a foot chase. Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican immigrant, was in the United States illegally, federal authorities have said. He had appeared in Dugan's courtroom in Milwaukee County Circuit Court in connection with a domestic abuse case. Advertisement FBI agents arrested Dugan several days later, and she was indicted Tuesday on charges of concealing a person from arrest and obstruction of proceedings. She is scheduled to appear in federal court in Milwaukee on Thursday. She has been temporarily removed from the bench by the Wisconsin Supreme Court while the federal case against her is in progress. A rally in support of Judge Hannah C. Dugan after she was charged, outside the FBI's Milwaukee Division in St. Francis, Wis., on April 26. JAMIE KELTER DAVIS/NYT The case quickly became synonymous with the Trump administration's broader immigration crackdown, and their warnings to local officials that they must not obstruct deportation efforts. The Trump administration has described the prosecution as a warning that no one is above the law, while many Democrats, lawyers and former judges have denounced it as an assault on the judiciary. Dugan's motion to dismiss the case argued that 'this is no ordinary criminal case, and Dugan is no ordinary criminal defendant,' and referred to the 10th Amendment, which addresses federal and state powers. Dugan's lawyers wrote that the government's prosecution of the judge 'violates the Tenth Amendment and fundamental principles of federalism and comity reflected in that amendment and in the very structure of the United States Constitution.' Steven Wright, who teaches criminal law at the University of Wisconsin Law School, said that the defense is arguing that Dugan was acting in her capacity as judge. 'Just because an individual wears the robe doesn't mean that they get to defy federal law,' he said. 'But as the motion tries to make clear, the Constitution gives judges a great deal of power to keep order in their own courtroom. So I expect in the coming weeks, one of the things the government is going to have to figure out is how to prove that the motive was political as opposed to the orderly administration of justice.' Advertisement This month, more than 150 former state and federal judges signed a letter to Bondi calling the arrest of Dugan an attempt to intimidate the judiciary. 'This cynical effort undermines the rule of law,' that letter said, 'and destroys the trust the American people have in the nation's judges to administer justice in the courtrooms and in the halls of justice across the land.' This article originally appeared in .
