Anti-Trump Judge Chosen to Preside Over Criminal Case Of WI Judge Accused of Impeding ICE

Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan’s federal trial has become even more contentious as the presiding judge, Lynn Adelman, faces scrutiny for his long political history and past criticisms of Trump and conservative figures. Critics argue his involvement could cast doubt on the trial’s impartiality.

Key Facts:

  • Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan was indicted for allegedly shielding an illegal immigrant from ICE.
  • Federal Judge Lynn Adelman, 85, was randomly assigned to preside over Dugan’s trial.
  • Adelman is a former Democratic state senator and was appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton in 1997.
  • He has published critical writings targeting President Trump and Chief Justice John Roberts.
  • Adelman was formally rebuked for a 2020 article deemed inconsistent with judicial impartiality.

The Rest of The Story:

Federal Judge Lynn Adelman’s assignment to oversee the trial of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan has sparked widespread concern over potential bias.

Dugan faces charges of helping an illegal immigrant avoid ICE custody from her courtroom bench.

Adelman, who served as a Democrat in Wisconsin’s legislature before being appointed to the federal bench by President Clinton in 1997, is under scrutiny due to his long history of partisan remarks and controversial rulings.

In 2020, Adelman penned a law review article lambasting the Supreme Court’s conservative direction and branding President Trump as “autocratic.”

While he later apologized and was not found guilty of violating judicial ethics, the Civility Committee warned that his comments could damage public confidence in judicial impartiality.

His past rulings, including one blocking a voter ID law later overturned on appeal, have further raised red flags among critics.

Commentary:

This trial is not just about Judge Dugan—it’s about the integrity of the federal judiciary.

When a judge with a long history of progressive activism and anti-Trump sentiment is tasked with overseeing a politically sensitive case, questions about fairness and impartiality are inevitable.

Adelman’s track record doesn’t inspire confidence among many Americans who are already skeptical of how justice is applied.

His 2020 law review article didn’t just cross a line—it erased it.

Accusing a sitting president of autocratic tendencies and suggesting the Supreme Court is part of a political assault undermines the very institution he serves.

This isn’t just theory.

Adelman’s past actions—like blocking a voter ID law without relying on Supreme Court precedent—show he’s willing to substitute personal politics for established legal standards.

The fact that his decision was so thoroughly rejected by the appellate court speaks volumes.

Judicial activism—especially when it undermines elected leadership—damages democracy more than it protects it.

The Bottom Line:

A judge with a partisan past now presides over a case that strikes at the heart of immigration enforcement and judicial ethics.

Judge Adelman’s history raises serious concerns about whether this trial will be handled fairly.

With public trust in the courts already eroding, assigning a politically outspoken judge to such a charged case risks turning justice into theater.

\

Sign Up For The TFPP Wire Newsletter

By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. You may opt out at any time.

Read Next

Chicago Mayor Brags About Hiring Only Blacks, Immediately Gets Hit With Major DOJ Investigation

Reporter Threatened, Stories Killed: Inside the Biden Health Cover-Up and the Complicit Press

Marco Rubio Flattens Van Hollen After Senator Says He Regretted Voting For Him as Sec State’

Red State Bans The Purchase of Soda or Energy Drinks With Food Stamps

Another Major Car Company Announces Plans to Scale Back on EV Production