Judicial Immunity

Judicial Immunity in the United States

Insulates judges from civil suits for actions done in the performance of their judicial functions. The doctrine of judicial immunity was intended to protect judges from fearing civil lawsuits commenced by unhappy litigants. It was felt that threat of such suit might intimidate judges from making controversial or difficult decisions. The doctrine was aimed at serving the public interest by having judges who could function with “independence” and “without fear of consequences.” See also Life Tenure (Judicial Function).

Analysis and Relevance

The Supreme Court first established the doctrine of judicial immunity in Bradley v. Fisher (13 Wallace 335: 1872). The immunity doctrine created in that case was extensive and applied to actions even when they might be “in excess of their jurisdictions” or “maliciously or corruptly” motivated. Only acts that are “non-judicial” are not covered by the immunity doctrine. This broad definition as well as some criteria for determination of “judicial” acts was incorporated into the Court’s decision in Stump v. Sparkman (435 U.S. 349: 1978). The Stump case involved a judge approving the sterilization of a minor. The judge of a general jurisdiction court was approached by the mother of the minor with a petition authorizing the process. The judge approved the petition without assigning the matter a docket number, giving notice to the minor, or appointing counsel to represent her. The Court ruled that having jurisdiction to sign the petition was determining in the case. Where judicial immunity is at issue, the “scope of jurisdiction must be construed broadly.” Furthermore, immunity exists even if the action taken by the judge was “in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority” so long as he or she had not acted in “clear absence of jurisdiction.” Clearly, said the Court, all judicial acts must be protected and no flaw in the judge’s performance makes a ruling “any less a judicial act.” The Court used two criteria in determining the action here was ajudi- cial one. First, responding to the petition was a function “normally performed by a judge.” Second, response from the judge was obtained consistently with the “expectation of the parties” that they are dealing with the judge in his or her “judicial capacity.”

Notes and References

  1. Definition of Judicial Immunity from the American Law Dictionary, 1991, California

Judicial Immunity in the United States

Judicial Immunity

United States Constitution

According to the Encyclopedia of the American Constitution, about its article titled JUDICIAL IMMUNITYIn Randall v. Brigham (1869) the Supreme Court endorsed the principle of judicial immunity. Under doctrine “as old as the law,” Justice stephen j. field wrote for the Court, judges of courts of general jurisdiction are immune from suit for judicial acts “unless perhaps where the
(read more about Constitutional law entries here).

Some Constitutional Law Popular Entries

Judicial Immunity meaning

Absolute immunity from liability that is granted to judges and court officers such as grand juries and prosecutors and for tortious acts or omissions done within the scope of their jurisdiction orauthority.

Judicial Immunity

Resources

Further Reading

  • Biased and Unfair' Report (letter), Harvey, Richard G., Jr., 63: 257, 301 (Dec.-Jan. '80, AJS Judicature)
  • Author's Answer (letter), Way, Frank, 65: 5, 50 (Jun.-Jul. '81, AJS Judicature)
  • A Call For Limits To Judicial Immunity: Must Judges Be Kings In Their Courts?, Way, Frank, 64: 390-399 (Apr. '81, AJS Judicature)
  • The Erosion of Judicial Immunity (focus), Reynoldson, W. Ward, 69: 114-115 (Aug.-Sep. '85, AJS Judicature)
  • Judicial Immunity and Effectiveness (letter), Patterson, Hugh M., 65: 5 (Jun.-Jul. '81, AJS Judicature)
  • Judicial Immunity Does Not Protect Private Conspirators, Court Rules (decision of note), Stiegler, Mayo H., 64: 468-469 (May '81, AJS Judicature)
  • Limiting Federal Court Jurisdiction: The Constitutional Basis for the Proposals in Congress Today, Rice, Charles E., 65: 190-197 (Oct. '81, AJS Judicature)
  • Limiting Federal Court Jurisdiction: The Unconstitutionality of Current Legislative Proposals, Taylor, Telford, 65: 198-208 (Oct. '81, AJS Judicature)
  • Limiting Federal Court Jurisdiction: The Unforeseen Impact on Courts and Congress, Kay, Kenneth R., 65: 185-189 (Oct. '81, AJS Judicature)
  • A Problem Blown Out of Proportion (letter), Montgomery, John E., 65: 4-5 (Jun.-Jul. '81, AJS Judicature)
  • Protecting Judges From Harassment (letter), Bellwood, Sherman J., 65: 4 (Jun.-Jul. '81, AJS Judicature)
  • Questions About Immunity (letter), Levine, Steven, 69: 124, 160 (Oct.-Nov. '85, AJS Judicature)
  • Seventh Circuit Holds Judge Liable for Racial Slurs Against Policeman (news), Author, No, 63: 198 (Oct. '79, AJS Judicature)

Posted

in

, ,

by

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *