Wisconsin judge who allegedly helped illegal alien evade ICE just got some really bad news

Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan was indicted by a federal grand jury in May on charges of concealing a person from arrest and obstruction of the law.

Dugan, relieved of her duties as a judge in April by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, allegedly helped Eduardo Flores-Ruiz — an illegal alien from Mexico charged with three misdemeanor counts of battery — get away from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement following the alien's pre-trial April 18 appearance in her courtroom.

Dugan has since fought desperately to avoid accountability for her alleged crimes, which were apparently caught on courtroom cameras and could land her up to six years in prison.

— (@)

On Tuesday, the Clinton-appointed U.S. district judge presiding over Dugan's case delivered her some bad news about her charges: She can't shirk them despite her attorneys' best attempt to have them dismissed.

Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Trump v. United States, lawyers for the Milwaukee judge claimed in a May 14 motion to dismiss the case that as a judge, Dugan is immune from criminal prosecution for judicial acts, that her prosecution violates the limits of federal power under the 10th Amendment, and that her indictment should be dismissed under the canon of constitutional avoidance.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph, the federal judge handling pre-trial proceeding in the case, blew up Dugan's arguments for dismissal last month and recommended that her motion to dismiss be denied.

RELATED: Democrats crown judges while crying about kings

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images

"It is well-established and undisputed that judges have absolute immunity from civil lawsuits for monetary damages when engaging in judicial acts," wrote Joseph. "This, however, is not a civil case. And review of the case law does not show an extension of this established doctrine to the criminal context."

Joseph noted further, "Does judicial immunity shield Dugan from prosecution because the indictment alleges she violated federal criminal law while performing judicial duties? The answer is no."

In addition to underscoring that there is "no firmly established absolute judicial immunity barring criminal prosecution of judges for judicial acts," Joseph clarified that the Supreme Court ruling in Trump "says nothing about criminal immunity for judicial acts."

The decision on whether to uphold Joseph's recommendation ultimately rested with U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, a former Democratic state senator with a history of attacking President Donald Trump.

'A review of the relevant history reveals the government has the better of the argument.'

Although on paper, it would appear the district judge might offer Dugan a sympathetic ear, Adelman ultimately embraced Joseph's recommendation and similarly dismantled Dugan's arguments for dismissal one by one.

Regarding Dugan's effort to use the Trump ruling as her ticket out of trouble, Adelman wrote in his Tuesday order, "There is no basis for granting immunity simply because some of the allegations in the indictment describe conduct that could be considered 'part of a judge's job.'"

"A review of the relevant history reveals the government has the better of the argument," wrote Adelman.

The district judge also rejected Dugan's claim that the federal prosecution violates the 10th Amendment, stressing that the indictment of a state judge neither results in the usurpation of Wisconsin's power to select, discipline, and remove its own judges, or the state's sovereignty.

Adelman similarly rejected Dugan's third main argument for dismissal, noting that "the canon of constitutional avoidance comes into play only when, after the application of ordinary textual analysis, a statute is found to be susceptible of more than one construction."

There is, however, no ambiguity with respect to the terms Dugan singled out in her motion to dismiss, namely the words "corruptly" and "proceeding" used in count two of her federal indictment, suggested Adelman.

The district judge denied Dugan's motion to dismiss, then scheduled an in-court hearing for Sept. 3.

Attorneys for Dugan said in a statement obtained by the Associated Press that they were disappointed with the decision but "look forward to the trial, which will show Judge Dugan did nothing wrong and simply treated this case like any other in front of her courtroom."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!