If it’s good for the presidential goose, it’s good for the judicial gander. That is the argument put forth by a Wisconsin judge in a motion to dismiss federal obstruction charges against her, after she allegedly helped a migrant evade federal law enforcement officials who showed up to her courtroom to detain him in April.
Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan cites the Supreme Court’s landmark 2024 decision granting presidents “absolute immunity” from prosecution for official acts while in office, laying out an argument for why that ruling and the legal precedents that inform it also apply to her case. SCOTUS’s controversial Trump v. United States decision last summer cited another case from 1967, Pierson v. Ray, which confirmed immunity for acts committed by judges in their official capacity, “even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously or corruptly.”
In part because of that ruling, criminal cases against judges are exceedingly rare, and are usually brought in cases of consistent and flagrant acts of corruption, like the judges ensnared in the Operation Greylord sting in the 1980s, some of whom were charged and convicted for taking six-figure bribes in exchange for fixing murder cases.
Given that Pierson v. Ray is cited repeatedly in the Supreme Court decision as the precedent for granting Trump immunity from criminal prosecution, Dugan argues, then its finding of judicial immunity must apply in her case. “If the Pierson holding suggested presidential immunity to criminal liability, it expressly did the same for judicial immunity,” her motion reads.
Another facet of Dugan’s motion rests on the “vertical separation of powers” granted by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which reaffirms the principles of federalism, particularly the notion that the federal government only maintains limited, enumerated powers. “Because Judge Dugan rightly asserts judicial immunity and the Tenth Amendment as bars to prosecution, the Court should not engage in factfinding,” her motion argues. “A bar like immunity blocks proceedings at the outset.”
Dugan is facing charges of obstructing or impeding a proceeding before a department or agency of the United States, and concealing an individual to prevent his discovery and arrest, each of which carry a maximum penalty of 6 years in prison and up to $350,000 in fines.
