Document Type
Article
Publication Date
Winter 2024
Abstract
Sterilization for shorter jail sentences. Vasectomies and birth control implants for freedom. In 2017, a criminal court judge in rural Tennessee made this offer to people incarcerated through sentences issued by his court. When litigators sought monetary damages and to enjoin the practice, and the local media exposed the scheme, the judge begrudgingly rescinded the order while expressing surprise that it was controversial. The Board of Judicial Conduct issued a letter of reprimand to the judge. Meanwhile, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee summarily dismissed the constitutional tort claims against the judge based on absolute judicial immunity. The judge continued to sit on the bench for five more years with no real civil liability and no more than a letter reprimand as administrative punishment. A jurist in the United States had instituted a modern eugenics scheme and suffered less than a slap on the wrist.
Judicial immunity protects the most egregious abuses of authority. The doctrine also frustrates the very foundations of civil rights liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by ensuring injured plaintiffs receive no recompense for constitutional or statutory deprivations committed by jurists. At the same time, the immunity admittedly is important to promoting an impartial judiciary focused on justly deciding controversies rather than defending frivolous lawsuits. Judicial immunity should strike a fair balance between these two competing interests. It does not.
To promote redressability while preserving judicial independence, this Article proposes a modest reform to judicial immunity. I suggest revising the absolute immunity standard for trial court judges to say: a judge is not subject to suit or liability for judicial acts not made in the clear absence of all jurisdiction unless the plaintiff did not have a meaningful opportunity to appeal as of right. This revision refocuses judicial immunity at the trial court level on the availability of a meaningful opportunity for appellate review as a matter of right. This new test thereby allows plaintiffs a chance to either have a judge's unconstitutional action reversed by an appellate court or afford a plausible cause of action for monetary damages against the offending jurist. Because of the use of multi-judge panels by appellate courts, this new standard need not apply to them. Therefore, this modest reform proposal rebalances judicial immunity to provide a remedy for a right deprived without trampling judicial independence. In other words, guaranteeing judicial immunity does not breed judicial impunity.
Recommended Citation
Bailey D. Barnes,
Rebalancing Judicial Immunity for Civil Rights Actions, 91 Tennessee Law Review 265
(2024).
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/facpubs/1290