A Milwaukee judge who was arrested for allegedly shielding an undocumented immigrant from ICE arrest has argued that she can’t be prosecuted based on the same case that granted President Donald Trump broad immunity for “official” acts.
The FBI arrested Hannah Dugan last month after she allegedly told agents with Immigration and Customs Enforcement that they needed a warrant to arrest an undocumented immigrant who had appeared in her courtroom on a misdemeanor charge.
…
The motion argued that the problems with the prosecution were “legion,” including the fact that they allegedly violated the U.S. Constitution’s fundamental principle of federalism. But “most immediately, the government cannot prosecute Judge Dugan because she is entitled to judicial immunity for her official acts,” it said.
As evidence, the motion cited the 2024 Supreme Court case Trump v. United States in which the court ruled the president had absolute immunity for “official acts.”
As a judge she knew the difference between due process and extrajudicial kidnapping for trafficking to a foreign concentration camp. She was standing up for the rule of law, and the fascists in charge are determined to punish her for it.
Have to make an example of her to quash further dissent.
I’ll show you the line that was crossed.
The Rule of Law is supposed to lift law above politics. The idea is that the law should stand above every powerful person and agency in the land.
Rule by law, in contrast, connotes the instrumental use of law as a tool of political power. It means that the state uses law to control its citizens but tries never to allow law to be used to control the state.
Rule of Law: law is above politics.
YOU ARE HERE
Rule by Law: control the individual.
Right there!
Let me show you the predicate that failed.
Rule by law, in contrast, connotes the instrumental use of law as a tool of political power. It means that the state uses law to control its citizens but tries never to allow law to be used to control the state.
As a completely unfounded opinion on the role of ethics, this blatantly beggars the question.
Can’t wait for SCOTUS to rule that the immunity ruling somehow applies only to Trump.
I’m fully banking on it. They’ll argue the office of the president is “special” and not beholden to the same rules and regulations that are supposed to bind public servants. And the SC will grant them that.
Then they will be opening themselves for future prosecution for their acts. I could see them (majority) siding with her just to protect their asses.
I’d almost love it if that ruling screwed over polices qualified immunity for their “official acts.”
I was under the impression that that was really the case and didn’t apply to anyone else in government.
I have to read the full text again, and IANAL, but the ruling was former presidents cannot be prosecuted for official acts particularly by their core constitutional powers. It did not rule on unofficial acts.
To me, that means every official act can be weighed against it being in his authority to actually do those things. If he doesn’t have that constitutional power, then he doesn’t get official act immunity.
What the judge did is power granted to the judicial branch by the constitution. That, again to me, says that there is an immunity clause.
But that all is based on the premise that law matters, and it doesn’t given that we’ve already abandoned due process.
So if the agent’s actions were illegal then her actions were legal.
Why is the ground so slippery lately?
All the bootlicking
The problem with the prosecution is there is no law being broken. If the person had been in ice custody it would be one thing but as a free person there for something unrelated and not delivered by ice the judge is completely free to allow access to the private area of the court that the judge has authority over.
I hope it works, but I wouldn’t count on it. Hypocrisy has become a valued skill rather than a character flaw in this administration.
Shit yea, they apply immunity for official acts all the way down to the level of street cops who get away with crimes against the public, so why shouldn’t it apply to that judge
