'Wasting time': Judge accused of helping immigrant evade ICE agents is barred from 'eliciting' statements made by AG Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel during trial

The federal judge overseeing the immigration-related case against Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan dealt the defense a series of defeats as trial looms in the high-profile Wisconsin dust-up.

In a 21-page decision and order issued late Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, a Bill Clinton appointee, largely ruled against the defense on several of the foremost bids to help her case.

The U.S. Department of Justice filed a combined motion in limine — a pretrial motion regarding the admissibility of certain evidence — containing a total of 14 discrete requests earlier this month.

In turn, attorneys representing the indicted judge filed two motions in limine containing 13 requests of their own.

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

A series of back-and-forth filings by the defense and DOJ followed — each opposing the other side's evidentiary arguments.

The court's order does not contain unalloyed wins or losses for either the government or the defense, but the Trump administration will likely be more pleased with the overall results than Dugan.

At the outset, Adelman granted requests by the government that bar the defense from making arguments over punishment, jury nullification, the sufficiency of discovery in the case, and how Dugan was arrested. The court also disallowed the defense from defining "reasonable doubt."

The ruling on Dugan's arrest contains an additional sting. In a footnote, Adelman elaborates to say that the issue is related to defense requests to question FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi under oath — requests the court ultimately denied.

Dugan, for her part, argued that statements made by Patel and Bondi were relevant to show bias in the investigation itself — and should therefore be admitted under the federal evidentiary rules.

But the court disputed that logic.

"[W]hile bias is broadly admissible on issues of credibility, neither the Attorney General nor the FBI Director will testify in this case," the order reads. "[D]efendant should not be permitted to inject national political figures into this trial. Any slight probative value of this evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, and wasting time. Defendant's motion is denied."

The defense also sustained a major loss on the issue of Dugan's official acts as a judge.

In her first motion in limine, the defense argued "[s]he had a legal right to engage in those acts," in reference to the charged actions which make up the government's case against her.

Dugan allegedly impeded Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents during an immigration bust by helping a Mexican national named Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, who is facing misdemeanor battery charges, leave through a jury door after a hearing in his criminal case.

The judge sharply disputes the basis of the indictment itself.

"[E]ach of the five acts listed in this indictment were ones that Judge Dugan had a legal right to undertake in the minutes after she learned that ICE agents were outside her courtroom," the defense argued. "She was within the lawful powers of her job."

In response, DOJ attorneys argued Dugan's motion was essentially attempting to re-litigate an already-foreclosed judicial immunity issue.

More Law&Crime coverage: 'She had no authority': Judge must face the music for allegedly obstructing Trump ICE agents as there is 'no basis for granting immunity,' ruling says

In the end, Adelman sided with the government.

"As the government notes, defendant's motion in limine would in effect confer partial judicial immunity and put much of the government's proof off limits," Adelman writes. "I agree that the correct approach is to permit the jury to consider all of defendant's conduct on April 18, 2025, in deciding whether she concealed an alien under § 1071 or corruptly endeavored to obstruct a proceeding under § 1505."

But the news was not all bad for the defense.

Notably, the government was barred from arguing "whether defendant violated the rights of [Flores-Ruiz's] alleged victims," finding such arguments would contain the "danger of unfair prejudice."

Adelman also granted several of Dugan's requests that asked for sequestration of witnesses, written jury instructions, prohibiting character evidence, prohibiting reference to the defendant's personal beliefs, barring the government from "eliciting undisclosed expert testimony," and directing the DOJ to turn over certain grand jury materials before trial starts.

Dugan is currently slated to face a trial on her charges beginning Dec. 15.