More: Dugan was indicted on Tuesday for allegedly concealing a person from arrest and obstruction. A day later, her lawyers argued in a motion to dismiss the case that Dugan is "no ordinary criminal defendant."

The motion argued that the problems with the prosecution were "legion," including the fact that they allegedly violated the U.S. Constitution's fundamental principle of federalism. But "most immediately, the government cannot prosecute Judge Dugan because she is entitled to judicial immunity for her official acts," it said.

As evidence, the motion cited the 2024 Supreme Court case Trump v. United States in which the court ruled the president had absolute immunity for "official acts."

The 6-3 ruling involved Trump's criminal prosecution over his attempts to overturn former President Joe Biden's 2020 election victory.

It didn't provide a standard for what counts as an "official act" or determine whether any of Trump's individual actions fell within that category, saying only that the lower courts needed to consider the case in light of the sweeping immunity afforded to the president.

Dugan's motion argued that the same standard should apply not just to the president, but to judges.

"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," the motion said.

The motion denied that Dugan had directed the defendant to leave through the jury door so he could evade ICE agents, but even if she had, "Judges are empowered to maintain control over their courtrooms specifically and the courthouse generally," according to the motion.

It also cited other evidence showing that judges have enjoyed immunity for official acts dating back to the 17th century in England, and carrying on through U.S. common law.