Doctrine
Judicial Immunity
Why you can't sue the judge — even when the judge is wrong, biased, or acting outrageously.
What It Is
Judicial immunity is a form of absolute immunity that protects judges from § 1983 liability for acts performed in their judicial capacity. It applies even if the judge acted erroneously, corruptly, or maliciously.
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) is the extreme example: a judge who approved a petition to sterilize a 15-year-old girl — without her knowledge — was absolutely immune because the act was “judicial” in nature and he had jurisdiction over the subject matter.
The Two Exceptions
Judicial immunity does not apply when:
- The act was not judicial — Administrative or executive acts (hiring, firing, budget decisions) don’t get absolute immunity
- The judge acted in the complete absence of jurisdiction — Not just an error in jurisdiction, but truly no jurisdiction at all (e.g., a traffic court judge ordering someone imprisoned for a felony)
These exceptions are extremely narrow. In practice, judicial immunity is nearly impenetrable.
Your Remedies
If a judge violates your rights:
- Appeal the decision
- File a judicial conduct complaint with the state judicial conduct commission
- Mandamus — In rare cases, you can petition a higher court to compel the judge to act
- Recusal motion — If the judge is biased, move for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455
Key Cases
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) — Judicial immunity even for outrageous acts
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991) — Judge who ordered police to seize attorney — immune
- Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (1988) — Administrative acts (firing a probation officer) get only qualified immunity