Reposted by Sean Mollet
Sean Mollet
@seanmollet.bsky.social
1.1K followers 3K following 202 posts
Engineer, classical liberal, almost divorced. Social media is entertainment, not life. Twitter sucks. Opinions and stupidity are my own. Foolishness is too. He/that one guy Overland Park, KS
![DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
Hon. Hannah C. Dugan moves for an order dismissing the indictment. This is no ordinary criminal case, and Dugan is no ordinary criminal defendant.
Dugan is a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge. She was arrested and indicted for actions allegedly taken in and in the immediate vicinity of her courtroom, involving a person appearing before her as a party. The government's prosecution of Judge Dugan is virtually unprecedented and entirely unconstitutional --it violates the Tenth Amendment and fundamental principles of federalism and comity reflected in that amendment and in the very structure of the United States Constitution.
The problems with this prosecution are legion, but most immediately, the government cannot prosecute Judge Dugan because she is entitled to judicial immunity for her official acts. Immunity is not a defense to the prosecution to be determined later by a jury or court; it is an absolute bar to the prosecution at the outset. See Trump v. United States, 608 U.S.593, 630 (2024).
3. Even if (contrary to what the trial evidence would show) Judge Dugan took the actions the complaint alleges, these plainly were judicial acts for which she has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution. Judges are empowered to maintain control over their courtrooms specifically and the courthouse generally. Stevens v. Osuna, 877 F.3d 1293, 1305 (11th Cir. 2017). "[TJhe issuance of an order removing persons from the, courthouse in the interest of maintaining such control is an ordinary function performed by judges[.]" Id,
4. Judge Dugan's subjective motivations are irrelevant to immunity. "Judges are entitled to absolute immunity for their judicial acts, without regard to the motive with which those acts are allegedly performed." Id.; accord Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. at 618 ("In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the president's motives.)](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:dozrbbuzuojdwr2psqkapfxo/bafkreibin6ed5drlyh5rjvzsild36zedpbcjs6bu42os67xlgsnh6tfqfu)
