Court Denies Immunity for Judge Who Personally Jailed Two Innocent Kids, Upholds Damages

ST. LOUIS, Mo.—On Tuesday, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a judge who personally jailed two innocent children after a 2019 custody hearing is not entitled to qualified immunity or judicial immunity. In doing so, the court upheld a jury verdict awarding the children damages and attorney’s fees for what Taney County Judge Eric Eighmy put them through. 

“Every reasonable person knows that a judge can’t throw children in jail for no good reason. Yet Judge Eighmy claimed qualified immunity shielded him from accountability anyway because no prior case told him that imprisoning innocent kids is unconstitutional,” said Institute for Justice (IJ) Attorney Dylan Moore, who wrote an amicus brief in the case and argued it before the court. “That defense is ridiculous, and we are thrilled that the court saw through it. When government officials commit such obvious constitutional violations, qualified immunity should never enter the picture.” 

The case began in 2019 amid a custody dispute between the children’s parents. During a court hearing before Judge Eighmy, the parents decided that Kadan and Brooklyn would go home with their mother that day. The children, who wanted to leave with their father, aired their grievances to their mother in the courthouse lobby. 

After the hearing was adjourned, Judge Eighmy took off his robe, exited the courtroom, and injected himself into the disagreement between the children and their mother. When the kids stood their ground, Judge Eighmy escorted them to a nearby detention center. There, at Judge Eighmy’s direction, the children were forced to remove some of their clothing and sit in separate jail cells for about an hour. Judge Eighmy eventually returned, and the children agreed to leave with their mom—but only after the judge threatened to throw them in foster care, where they would never see their family again.  

The children’s father sued Judge Eighmy for violating their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures. Since then, this case has made two trips to the 8th Circuit. The first time, Judge Eighmy argued that he was entitled to judicial immunity. IJ—which submitted an amicus brief and participated in oral argument—argued that judicial immunity did not apply because throwing innocent children in jail outside any court process is not a judicial function. The 8th Circuit agreed, paving the way for an eventual jury verdict of $5,000 to each child. 

Judge Eighmy then returned to the 8th Circuit, asking it to expand another bogus immunity doctrine—qualified immunity—to invalidate the jury’s verdict. Again, IJ filed an amicus brief and participated in oral argument. And again, the 8th Circuit sided with IJ.  

Tuesday’s decision rejected Judge Eighmy’s last-ditch effort to escape accountability and solidified the Rocketts’ victory. Despite the absence of a similar case, the 8th Circuit held that Judge Eighmy’s constitutional violation was so obvious that qualified immunity could not shield him any more than judicial immunity could. Simply put: “A reasonable judge should have known better.”  

Through its Project on Immunity and Accountability, IJ leads the nationwide charge against baseless immunity doctrines that prevent people from getting justice when their constitutional rights are violated. In 2023, IJ defeated judicial immunity for a rogue judge who conducted an unconstitutional search of a West Virginia man’s home during divorce proceedings. In 2024, IJ won a U.S. Supreme Court case on behalf of a Castle Hills, Texas woman who was arrested in retaliation for speaking out against the city manager. And now, IJ is seeking to hold federal officers accountable after they illegally detained an Army veteran during an immigration raid.