A federal judge with a long history of anti-Trump remarks and rulings has been assigned to preside over a major DOJ case.

85-year-old U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, appointed by Bill Clinton, was “randomly” selected to oversee the trial of Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan, who stands accused of concealing an illegal alien from ICE authorities in her courtroom.

In what will add even greater controversy to an already controversial case, U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, 85, had been assigned to preside over the trial of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan. Adelman has a history of injudicious and biased political commentary…

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 20, 2025

JUST IN: Judge Hannah Dugan argues prosecutors can’t charge her with helping a man evade immigration agents

A grand jury indicted her on charges Tuesday. She faces up to six years in prison if convicted of both counts.

The judge overseeing her case is Lynn Adelman, a former… pic.twitter.com/b4RFXdp05s

— Steve Gruber (@stevegrubershow) May 14, 2025

Fox News provided a detailed summary of Adelman’s anti-Trump history:

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.

Though the judge hasn’t been active in politics for years, critics note recent rulings and writings in which he’s taken aim at President Donald Trump, Chief Justice Roberts and others.

ADVERTISEMENT

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.

In 2020, Adelman published an article for Harvard Law & Policy Review, titled, “The Roberts Court’s Assault on Democracy” that set off a torrent of criticism from Trump allies and court commentators alike.

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

Wisconsin voter ID

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.

He blocked the law from taking force ahead of the elections — a decision that was later reversed by the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which again issued a sharp rebuke of his ruling.

In “our hierarchical judicial system, a district court cannot declare a statute unconstitutional just because he thinks (with or without the support of a political scientist) that the dissent was right and the majority wrong,” the appeals court said, noting that Adelman did not rely on any Supreme Court precedent to base his decision.

Coincidence?!

Is anyone surprised at this point?

We can only hope that this elderly, left-wing judge will uphold justice and rule fairly. Who knows for sure?

However…in the case that he doesn’t, the DOJ can still appeal the case.

I have a feeling we’re in for a long legal road ahead…buckle up!

This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport.

View the original article here.