Lawyers for Wisconsin Judge Hannah C. Dugan have moved to dismiss federal charges against her, arguing that she is entitled to judicial immunity for actions taken from the bench. The motion, filed Wednesday in a federal court in Milwaukee, came a day after Judge Dugan was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of concealing a person from arrest and obstructing proceedings.

The charges stem from an incident last month in which prosecutors allege that Judge Dugan directed an undocumented immigrant appearing in her Milwaukee County courtroom to an exit away from immigration agents waiting to arrest him. The immigrant, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, was arrested outside the courthouse after a brief foot chase. Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican national, was in the United States illegally and was in court for a domestic abuse case, according to federal authorities.

In their motion, Dugan’s attorneys argued that the case is "virtually unprecedented" and violates long-established principles of judicial immunity, which protect judges from prosecution for acts taken as part of their official duties. "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 stated.

Judicial immunity is a well-established doctrine in American law, designed to protect judges from personal liability for decisions made in the course of their judicial duties. The principle traces back to early English common law, where it served to ensure the independence of the judiciary by shielding judges from lawsuits over their rulings. In the United States, this immunity has been reaffirmed repeatedly by the Supreme Court, which has held that judges are immune from civil liability for acts taken in their judicial capacity, even if those acts are alleged to be mistaken, malicious, or in bad faith.

Dugan’s defense team argues that her decision to direct the defendant to a different exit was a judicial act, falling squarely within her discretion to manage courtroom proceedings. They assert that this immunity extends to the federal charges she now faces, which they argue amount to an unprecedented intrusion into state judicial functions. The defense further contends that the charges represent an overreach by federal prosecutors, potentially undermining the separation of powers enshrined in the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the states powers not explicitly granted to the federal government.

The motion also invoked the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not explicitly granted to the federal government to the states, asserting that the federal prosecution oversteps constitutional boundaries. "This is no ordinary criminal case, and Dugan is no ordinary criminal defendant," her lawyers wrote, framing the charges as an attack on judicial independence.

The Justice Department has defended its prosecution, emphasizing that no one is above the law, including judges. Attorney General Pam Bondi, in a statement referencing the case, said, "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."

Judge Dugan, who has been temporarily removed from the bench by the Wisconsin Supreme Court pending the outcome of the case, is scheduled to appear in federal court in Milwaukee on Thursday. Her arrest has sparked intense political debate, with supporters framing the prosecution as an assault on the judiciary, while critics argue that judges must be held accountable for actions that obstruct federal immigration enforcement.