Wisconsin Judge Claims Immunity After Allegedly Aiding Illegal Immigrant Escape ICE Arrest—Legal Experts Question Validity

Yet that Supreme Court ruling dealt with the unique constitutional protections afforded to U.S. Presidents, not trial-level judges. Legal analysts argue that Dugan’s reliance on this precedent is a stretch, at best.

“She is not a former president. She is a county judge. Her authority is limited to adjudicating cases within her jurisdiction—not undermining federal law enforcement operations in her courthouse,” said legal analyst, Gavin Tyron.

For judicial immunity to apply, the act must be both judicial in nature and within the judge’s jurisdiction. But leading someone out the back door to elude ICE may fall outside that scope.

“This wasn’t a ruling from the bench,” said David Kaplan, a Wisconsin-based constitutional attorney. “This was an active attempt to help someone escape the law. That’s not judicial. That’s interference.”

The prosecution’s legal strategy appears aimed at piercing the immunity shield by proving Dugan’s actions were administrative—not judicial.

In Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991), the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that judges are not immune from actions that are “nonjudicial” or taken in the complete absence of jurisdiction. If Dugan’s conduct is deemed nonjudicial, her motion to dismiss could be rejected outright.