Judicial Immunity

Judicial immunity is one of many court-created doctrines that shield government workers from constitutional accountability. Judicial immunity is one of the the most ironclad immunity doctrines. It’s not lost on us that the same people who created and apply judicial immunity—judges—benefit from it.

Similar to prosecutorial immunity, judicial immunity is an “absolute immunity”—judges cannot be sued for actions taken within their role as judges or within their jurisdiction.

While the intent of judicial immunity is to ensure judges can make impartial decisions without fear of personal consequences, it shields judges even for malicious, corrupt, or illegal actions. The U.S. Supreme Court solidified judicial immunity in Bradley v. Fisher (1871). In its opinion, it gave the examples of a criminal court judge convicting a defendant of a nonexistent crime or imposing a sentence not allowed by law as actions that would receive judicial immunity. The Supreme Court further strengthened judicial immunity in Stump v. Sparkman (1978), when it ruled a county judge was entitled to judicial immunity for signing a petition—without a hearing—allowing a mother to have her 15-year-old daughter sterilized without the girl’s knowledge or consent.

In 2023, IJ secured a rare court victory over judicial immunity when the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled in favor of IJ client Matt Gibson, who sued former family court judge Louise Goldston for personally leading a warrantless search of Matt’s house. The court ruled that the search was not within Goldston’s role as a judge: Judges can order searches, but executing searches is the role of law enforcement. Therefore, Matt’s case went forward, ending in a settlement for Matt. The 4th Circuit win was the fifth time in 50 years that a federal appeals court has denied a judge immunity for exercising executive power.