Federal judge with history of anti-Trump remarks assigned to Hannah Dugan criminal case

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, 85, was randomly assigned to preside over the jury trial of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan, who was indicted earlier this month for allegedly shielding an illegal immigrant from ICE in her courtroom. Adelman, a former Democratic lawmaker and outspoken judge, faces mounting criticism and scrutiny of his record as he handles the high-profile case. 

Adelman spent 20 years as a Democrat in the Wisconsin state Senate before then-President Bill Clinton nominated him in 1997 to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. 

Some fear this continued political bias could risk his impartiality in presiding over Dugan's trial - or at least the perceptions of it, in the eyes of Trump allies. Adelman did not respond to a request for comment.

The article accused Chief Justice John Roberts of breaking with his Senate confirmation testimony in 2005 - instead ushering in a "hard-right majority" on the Supreme Court, and "actively participating in undermining American democracy."

Adelman also took aim at Trump, whose temperament he said "is that of an autocrat," but who he said "is also disinclined to buck the wealthy individuals and corporations who control his party."

Adelman used the article to advocate for "righting the ship" of the high court, in part by embracing an approach similar to the Warren Court - known both for its landmark civil rights rulings and a slew of other progressive decisions. 

Adelman was later admonished by the Civility Committee for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals for his remarks in the article. 

They found his remarks did not violate prohibited political activity under the Canons of Judicial Conduct, but issued the following rebuke:

"The opening two sentences regarding the Chief Justice and the very pointed criticisms of Republican Party policy positions could be seen as inconsistent with a judge's duty to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and as reflecting adversely on the judge's impartiality," the committee said.

Adelman later issued a public apology for those remarks. 

Adelman was also at the center of a major case involving Wisconsin's voter ID law, which sought to make it harder for citizens to vote. 

In light of his previous remarks and progressive rulings, court-watchers expect his behavior here to be closely scrutinized.

"Because of these ethical principles, judges are usually highly restrained in their public comments, particularly about political or ideological matters," he said. 

But others noted that federal judges often take great caution to avoid the appearance of political bias, even more so in public remarks, understanding that doing so could violate the canons for judicial behavior. 

Many also see their roles on the court as a serious job that requires them to be impartial arbiters of the law - looking to precedent, rather than politics - as their guide.

In presiding over Dugan's case, experts hope Adelman will do the same.