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.
More: But the global picture is even more interesting. While the world is now awash in debt, this is not a universal problem. Western governments, fuelled by cheap credit and the huge run-up in pandemic-era debt, account for most of the planet's borrowing. Add the private borrowing of their citizens, and their debts now account for several times their annual output.
While debt crises used to be thought of as a developing-world problem, most major governments there have since got their fiscal houses back in order. As a result, while investors have been demanding higher returns on loans to Western governments, since the start of the year bond yields in India, Nigeria, Brazil and Mexico have all been trending downwards.
It's obvious why. With better growth prospects and more prudent budgeting " not just by governments, but by the private and household sectors too " the countries of the developing world are starting to prove more attractive as long-term prospects for bond investors. If Western politicians continue to wave off the concerns of their lenders, they will continue to receive negative responses that choke off their credit supply. It happened in Britain three years ago; will America be next?