Lawyers for Judge Hannah C. Dugan, a state judge in Wisconsin who has been accused of obstructing immigration agents, sought on Wednesday to dismiss the federal charges against her.
A court filing by her defense lawyers, which came a day after Judge Dugan was indicted by a federal grand jury in Milwaukee, asserted that the “government cannot prosecute Judge Dugan because she is entitled to judicial immunity for her official acts.” “Since at least the early 17th century in England, and carried on through common law in the United States, judges of record have been entitled to absolute immunity for official acts with a few exceptions not applicable here,” the filing said, adding that the efforts to prosecute the judge were “virtually unprecedented and entirely unconstitutional.”
Justice Department officials have defended their prosecution of Judge Dugan. They say the judge directed an undocumented immigrant 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 on Wednesday to a request for comment.
“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.
The immigrant, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, was arrested outside the courthouse following a foot chase. Mr. Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican immigrant, was in the United States illegally, federal authorities have said. He had appeared in Judge Dugan’s courtroom in Milwaukee County Circuit Court in connection with a domestic abuse case.
F.B.I. agents arrested Judge Dugan several days later, and she was indicted on 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.
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.
Judge Dugan’s motion to dismiss the case argued that “this is no ordinary criminal case, and Dugan is no ordinary criminal defendant.”
Judge 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 Judge 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.”
Earlier this month, more than 150 former state and federal judges signed a letter to Ms. Bondi calling the arrest of Judge 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.”
Julie Bosman, Dan Simmons and Devlin Barrett contributed reporting.
