Judicial Immunity and the Supreme Court
Judicial immunity is a legal doctrine that protects judges from being sued for actions taken in their official capacity, allowing them to make decisions based on their convictions without fear of civil liability. This principle is crucial for maintaining judicial independence, as it enables judges to operate free from external pressures. The concept was notably articulated in the 1872 case of Bradley v. Field, where Justice Stephen J. Field emphasized that judges must be able to act according to their conscience. Over the years, the Supreme Court has consistently reaffirmed judicial immunity, ruling in cases like Stump v. Sparkman that decisions made by judges, even if deemed erroneous, are generally protected as long as they fall within the judge's jurisdiction.
However, judicial immunity is not absolute; it does not cover actions outside the judge's official duties or jurisdiction. For instance, in Pulliam v. Allen, the Court clarified that while judges may be immune from civil suits, they can still be subject to awards of attorneys' fees or injunctive relief for actions that violate constitutional rights. Recent discussions have emerged, highlighting concerns over the accountability of judges, particularly in light of the Project on Immunity and Accountability launched in 2020, which seeks to address these issues within the judicial system. This ongoing debate reflects a broader interest in ensuring that judges uphold laws and constitutional principles just like any other citizen.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Judicial Immunity and the Supreme Court
Definition: The freedom from prosecution conferred upon members of the judiciary when they act in their official capacity.
Significance: The Supreme Court upheld the right of the judiciary to act without fear of personal consequences for decisions rendered in the course of official duties until the 1980s, when this right became more limited.
While acting within the scope of official duties and official jurisdiction, judges must be able to act according to the dictates of conscience, free from the threat of civil damages, even though decisions that are rendered may later be proved erroneous.
In the case of Bradley v. Field (1872), concerning a judge who presided at the trial of one of the men accused of murdering President Abraham Lincoln, Associate Justice Stephen J. Field wrote the defining majority opinion for judicial immunity. He wrote that judges must be able to act upon their own convictions without fear of reprisal in order for the judiciary to maintain its independence. Field allowed that the action of a judge could be challenged if lack of jurisdiction were proven, but in that event, a civil suit was still not possible. A challenge to a judge could come only through impeachment or another prescribed remedy.
Judicial immunity was reaffirmed several times. In 1967 it was held to be unaffected by federal civil rights laws, which allowed damages against any person depriving another of rights while acting under the color of law. In Stump v. Sparkman (1978), the Supreme Court upheld a judge’s decision granting a mother the right to have her daughter sterilized even though the daughter’s consent was not first obtained. The Court held there was no state law or other decision that denied such authority to the judge. However, no judge may claim immunity for an illegal or criminal act if such an act was committed outside the judge’s proper office and jurisdiction.
In Pulliam v. Allen (1984), the Court ruled that judicial immunity does not prevent either the award of attorneys’ fees under the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act or injunctive relief against judges acting in their official capacity. In Pulliam, two men who were jailed for failure to post bond after arrest for abuses for which they could not receive jail sentences sued the judge. A federal court ruled that it was unconstitutional for judges to require bail for offenses that did not carry jail sentences and awarded the men several thousand dollars in attorneys’ fees and expenses.
Judicial immunity was once again an issue in the case of Morales v. Waco in 1991 when the Supreme Court upheld the judicial immunity of a judge accused of sanctioning the assault of a defense attorney. Though the judge’s actions were possibly illegal, the Court ruled because they occurred with his activities as a judge, judicial immunity applied.
In 2020, the Project on Immunity and Accountability launched out of concern over judicial immunity. The project brought national attention to the problems with a system where judges are not held accountable for following laws and the Constitution in the same way as regular American citizens.
Bibliography
Clark, Tori. “Bringing Down the Gavel on Judicial Immunity." The Institute for Justice, 1 Feb. 2023, ij.org/ll/bringing-down-the-gavel-on-judicial-immunity/. Accessed 5 Apr. 2023.
"Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991).” FindLaw Caselaw, 2023, caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/502/9.html. Accessed 5 Apr. 2023.
Nies, Robert E., and Ross G. Greenberg. “The Liability of Mediators Is Unsettled.” National Law Journal 17, no. 41 (June 12, 1995): B9.
Olowofoyeku, Abimbola A. Suing Judges: A Study of Judicial Immunity. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.