More than 130 former state and federal judges are calling for the dismissal of criminal charges against Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan, who is accused of impeding government agents during an immigration bust.

Joining forces in an amicus brief filed Friday, the bipartisan collective of 138 judges — members of the group Defenders Democracy Fund — blasted Dugan’s arrest and prosecution as “an extraordinary and direct assault on the independence of the entire judicial system,” echoing statements made by Dugan in a new motion to dismiss her case that she filed last week.

“This case directly threatens the ability of all judges to do their jobs without fear of retaliatory prosecution,” the brief charges. “As judges with an obligation to preserve the integrity of the judiciary, we believe our perspective on the historical and legal underpinnings of judicial immunity will materially assist the court in navigating the significant constitutional questions presented by this case.”

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

Dugan, 65, was indicted last month after she allegedly helped an undocumented immigrant evade federal officers shortly after he appeared in her courtroom in connection with a domestic abuse case. She filed a motion Thursday seeking to have the federal obstruction charges she’s facing thrown out, arguing that much in the way that the president is immune from prosecution for official acts while in office, she is the beneficiary of broad judicial immunity.

“In practice, the Department of Justice is effectively requiring state court judges, in running their courtrooms and otherwise discharging their judicial responsibilities, to prioritize the interests of federal law enforcement above all else or risk federal prosecution,” the amicus brief says. “In other words, the federal government seeks to use criminal statutes — here, obstruction and concealment — as a means of compelling state court officials to prioritize the interest of federal officers, whenever they appear, over the parties, witnesses, and victims in the case and above the requirements of the state law to be applied.”

Dugan’s argument for dismissal largely hinges on the U.S. Supreme Court last year granting presidents far-reaching immunity from criminal prosecution.

“This is an extraordinary prosecution that poses a threat to federalism and judicial independence,” Dugan’s lawyers said. “In practical terms of American governmental design, consider starkly what it proposes.”

Friday’s amicus brief notes how the judges and Defenders Democracy Fund are not parties in the case, but rather filing a “friend of the court” brief to offer their “perspective on the historical and legal principles of judicial immunity, judicial independence and impartiality, and Tenth Amendment considerations in hopes of materially assisting the Court in navigating the significant constitutional questions presented by this case,” according to the filing.