Posted on 05/31/2025 5:08:27 AM PDT by Libloather
A bipartisan group of more than 130 retired judges filed a brief Friday urging a federal court to drop charges against Wisconsin judge Hannah Dugan, saying her arrest undermines "centuries of precedent on judicial immunity."
Dugan, a Milwaukee County circuit court judge, was arrested April 25 by FBI agents on federal allegations she prevented the arrest of a man by immigration authorities during a federal law enforcement operation at her courthouse. The man, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, was arrested and detained at an immigration detention center.
In an amicus brief filed Friday, the group of judges argue that Dugan shouldn't be prosecuted because "she is entitled to absolute immunity for her official acts."
"This bar on prosecution is the same absolute immunity that is given to members of the legislative and executive branches for their actions taken in an official capacity," the brief read.
The group of 138 former state and federal judges called the prosecution of Dugan, who was indicted by a grand jury earlier this month on one count each of concealing an individual to prevent arrest and obstruction, an "egregious overreach by the executive branch" that "threatens public trust in the judicial system and the ability of the public to avail themselves of courthouses without fear of reprisal."
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Snakes vowing not to eat each other.
There are over 30,000 judges in the US. This means only .004 or less than 1% of judges agree.
Put this criminal in jail for as long as humanly possible.
Judicial immunity doesn’t apply here because it wasn’t an official act, which essentially is limited to actions you take on the bench, or the signing of opinions/orders.
Good idea however:
(From Grok) Montana does not have a federal prison. The state has several state and local correctional facilities, such as the Montana State Prison in Deer Lodge and the Yellowstone County Detention Center, but no federal prison is located within Montana, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons and other available data. The closest federal facilities are in neighboring states, like Colorado or Idaho.
“By facilitating the escape of a wanted suspect, she was clearly acting in a private capacity, not an official one.”
She was not in a court room, there was no matter or controversy before this judge, there was no court reporter present.
This is in no way an official act that would fall under the auspices of judicial immunity.
Prosecute her fully and with vigor!
” her arrest undermines “centuries of precedent on judicial immunity.”
Her illegal behavior undermines the very laws she’s supposed to uphold.
Her arrogance, as a judge, put her exactly where she belongs.
Her radical beliefs exposed her as unfit to be a judge.
“centuries of precedent on judicial immunity.”
Nope. And when judges flout the law the penalties should be extreme.
Extremely extreme.
Good point. They’re saying release her even though she broke the law.
How about we let a jury decide this one? And when did helping an illegal alien escape capture (temporarily) become an official act?
To the re51 peoples now who opine in theier own behalf.
“There you go again” trying to rule from the bench.
Get over yourselves, if you need immunity it means that you did something wrong to start with!
unless & until some pensions are revoked, we’ll have this problem.
Active Fools are now Retire Old Fools
138 judges who also believe thy were above the law they held others to, thankfully they are retired.
Pensions of the retired Democrat apparatchik judges should be closely examined in the presence of the examiner.
What percentage of the 130 were Democrat judges?
Bring the federal judges out of retirement and impeach them. Would they have the same reaction if a conservative Minnesota judge had tried to sneak Derek Chauvin out the back door before his trial? (I know, a hypothetical question, since there are no conservative judges in Minneapolis)
What percentage of retired judges does that number represent?
“No one is above the law”, so why should a judge be allowed to violate the law?
The fact that judges, whom are supposed to understand that ‘justice is blind’, are actually arguing to be immune from the law is disgusting, and exposes judicial culture.
If a judge is clearly obstructing existing law, especially outside of the courtroom, they’re subject to the same law as the rest of us.
That they have the gall to even publicly declare this is more than troubling. They clearly believe that the black robe puts them in a position of power above all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.