Immunity for Official Acts Isn’t One-Dimensional
A Wisconsin judge’s defense in an ICE evasion case exposes the broader consequences of the Supreme Court’s Trump ruling — and the fragile line between authority and accountability.
The Wisconsin judge accused of helping an undocumented immigrant evade federal detention isn’t just raising a novel defense — she’s making a constitutional argument that strikes at the heart of government accountability. Judge Hannah Dugan, a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, is invoking judicial immunity, claiming that her decision to direct a man out a side door to avoid Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents was a protected “official judicial act.” And in making this claim, she is effectively arguing that the government has no right to bring charges against her at all.
Her legal team isn’t asking for leniency or a trial to weigh the facts. They’re saying the case should never have been brought — that the very act she’s accused of committing is immune from prosecution on its face. The basis of their argument: the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision that granted President Donald Trump immunity from criminal prosecution for acts carried out in his official capacity. That ruling established a sweeping legal precedent that public officials are either explicitly or presumptively immune from prosecution for actions performed as part of their duties.
It’s a bold move. But it also lays bare the deeper implications of the Trump immunity decision, which has rapidly become more than a legal shield for one former president. It’s evolving into a universal defense for any public official facing legal scrutiny — presidents, judges, members of Congress, even mayors. If immunity is granted on the basis of performing “official acts,” then the very concept of the rule of law begins to erode. Accountability becomes conditional, and the justice system fractures into tiers — one for government officials and another for everyone else.
This is not to say that Judge Dugan’s actions were justified. By most reasonable standards, her decision to help a defendant accused of domestic violence avoid immigration agents was inappropriate. She may have overstepped her authority and interfered with a lawful arrest. But the more pertinent question now is not whether her actions were right or wrong — it’s whether she should be immune from prosecution simply because she was on the bench when she made them.
Federal prosecutors charged Dugan with obstruction and concealing an individual to prevent arrest. Her attorneys say she’ll plead not guilty. The defense’s central claim is that immunity isn’t something to be debated during trial — it’s a barrier to prosecution from the outset. They argue the charges should be dismissed immediately, and if the courts agree, the case may never see a jury.
The implications are vast. If this defense succeeds, it will effectively validate and expand the scope of the 2023 Supreme Court ruling. It will mark a shift in how legal responsibility is applied to public officials — creating a precedent that blurs the line between authority and impunity.
Critics of the Dugan prosecution argue the government is overreaching, making an example of her for political reasons. That may be partially true. The optics — a judge helping an undocumented immigrant flee ICE during an active crackdown — are politically charged. But the defense itself is not political posturing. It is a direct invocation of newly established constitutional doctrine, and it’s drawing a line in the sand.
The U.S. Constitution was designed to prevent the rise of monarchs and tyrants, not to protect public officials from legal consequences. The Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling opened a Pandora’s box. Judge Dugan’s case is among the first to climb out — and it won’t be the last.
We may not yet know how the courts will rule on Dugan’s claim of immunity. But we do know this: If “official acts” place government officials beyond the reach of the law, then we are no longer operating under the principle that no one is above it.
Thank you for reading. More Signal, Less Noise welcomes open conversations and debates. Leave a comment below and join the discussion.