The image is a shocking one: a judge, still in her black robes, allegedly confronting federal agents in a courthouse hallway to help an undocumented immigrant escape through a back door. This dramatic scene has now led to a profound constitutional question that has been answered by a federal court:

Is a judge’s robe a shield of absolute immunity, or is it a uniform of public duty that is still subject to the rule of law?

The case of Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan, who has been charged with federal obstruction of justice, is not just a local crime story. It is a powerful and necessary lesson in one of the most misunderstood principles of our legal system.

An Appeal to Absolute Immunity

The federal indictment against Judge Dugan alleges a brazen scheme. Prosecutors claim that after learning ICE agents were in the courthouse to arrest a defendant, she took the case “off the record,” falsely told the agents they needed a different type of warrant, and then directed the defendant and his lawyer out of a private back door.

In response, her attorneys made a powerful and sweeping defense. They argued that her actions were protected by the doctrine of judicial immunity and that the federal prosecution was an unconstitutional violation of the 10th Amendment and the separation of powers.

The Constitutional Guardrail of Judicial Immunity

To understand this case, one must first understand the principle of judicial immunity. It is a vital, centuries-old doctrine designed to protect the independence of our judiciary. It ensures that judges can make decisions – even controversial or incorrect ones – without the constant fear of being sued by disgruntled litigants. This is an essential guardrail for an impartial and independent judiciary under Article III of the Constitution.

This immunity is nearly absolute for actions that are considered “judicial acts.” The crucial and unanswered question in this case was whether Judge Dugan’s alleged actions met that definition.

The Line Between a Judicial Act and a Federal Crime

In his ruling on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman rejected Dugan’s claim to immunity. His decision provides a masterclass in the limits of this powerful protection.

“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,’” Adelman wrote.

The analysis is clear: The question is not whether Judge Dugan was on the bench, but whether her specific actions were judicial in nature. Is taking a case “off the record” to secretly coordinate an escape a judicial act?

Is personally directing a defendant out a back door to evade federal agents a judicial act?

Judge Adelman’s ruling concludes that a jury could reasonably find that these actions fall outside the protection of judicial immunity and into the realm of criminal obstruction.

Furthermore, the defense’s argument based on the 10th Amendment and states’ rights runs directly into the Supremacy Clause of Article VI. A state judge cannot use her official, state-level authority to actively thwart the lawful execution of federal immigration law.

The rejection of Judge Dugan’s immunity claim is a powerful affirmation of a core principle. Judicial immunity is a vital shield for the rule of law, but it is not a sword that can be used to attack it. The robe of a judge confers great power and protection, but it does not place the person who wears it above the very law they are sworn to uphold. This case is a sober reminder that in our constitutional republic, no one is immune from accountability.