Judicial and Official Immunity: What Bradley, Pierson, Stump and Pulliam Hold

The judicial immunity rule

This page is for education, information and intellectual discussion. It explains what each authority says and what each court decided. It does not tell anyone to use these arguments, and it is not legal advice.

Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335 (1872) and Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978)

A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority; rather, he will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the “clear absence of all jurisdiction.”

Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356–357 (1978) (quoting Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. at 351)

What the case was about: In Bradley, a lawyer sued a judge who had disbarred him. In Stump, a young woman sued the judge who had approved her sterilization as a minor. Both judges were held immune.

How it applies: Affidavits quote Bradley’s line that “where there is clearly no jurisdiction over the subject-matter any authority exercised is a usurped authority.” That line is accurate. Both cases then applied immunity because the judges had subject-matter jurisdiction.

Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967)

Few doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction …

Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553–554 (1967)

What the case was about: Ministers arrested during the 1961 Freedom Rides sued the judge who convicted them and the arresting officers. The Court held the judge absolutely immune and allowed the officers a good-faith defense.

How it applies: Affidavits cite Pierson as 1957 and quote it as saying judicial immunity is “beyond cavil.” Those words are not in the opinion. The correct year is 1967.

Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984)

We conclude that judicial immunity is not a bar to prospective injunctive relief against a judicial officer acting in her judicial capacity.

Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984)

What the case was about: A Virginia magistrate jailed people who could not post bail for offenses that carried no jail time. The Court allowed an injunction and attorney’s fees against her. Immunity from damages was not at issue.

How it applies: The phrase “There is no common law judicial immunity,” credited to Pulliam, is not in the opinion. In 1996 Congress amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 so that injunctive relief against a judicial officer is not granted “unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.”

Cases on the limits of immunity

• Manning v. Ketcham, 58 F.2d 948 (6th Cir. 1932) — “Where there is no jurisdiction at all there is no judge; the proceeding is as nothing.” The court upheld a false-imprisonment judgment against a judge who acted with no jurisdiction at all.
• Dykes v. Hosemann, 743 F.2d 1488 (11th Cir. 1984) — a three-judge panel said immunity is lost if a judge acts “in the face of clearly valid statutes or case law expressly depriving him of jurisdiction.” The full court rejected that rule in 1985 (776 F.2d 942) and reaffirmed immunity where the judge has subject-matter jurisdiction.
• Bauers v. Heisel, 361 F.2d 581 (3d Cir. 1966) (en banc) — “The immunity of judges, from which the immunity of prosecutors is derivative, does not extend to acts which are clearly outside their jurisdiction.” The court then held the prosecutor immune.
• AFSCME v. Woodward, 406 F.2d 137 (8th Cir. 1969) — “state officials are not immune from suit when they transcend their lawful authority by invading constitutional rights.” City workers fired for joining a union could sue.
• Samuel v. University of Pittsburgh, 375 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1974) — said “no public official has an absolute and unqualified immunity from suit under Section 1983.” That statement concerned declaratory and injunctive relief; Pierson holds judges absolutely immune from damages.
• “Lezama v. Justice Court, A025829” — we could not find any opinion by this name.

Government in commerce

Affidavits quote Land v. Dollar, 330 U.S. 731 (1947), as saying that “when the government entered into a commercial field of activity, it left immunity behind.” That sentence is not in the opinion. Land held that a suit against officials holding property beyond their authority was not a suit against the United States.

The closest real language is in Brady v. Roosevelt Steamship Co., 317 U.S. 575 (1943): “when it comes to the utilization of corporate facilities in the broadening phases of federal activities in the commercial or business field, immunity from suit is not favored.” That case, and FHA v. Burr (1940) and Keifer & Keifer v. RFC (1939), concern federal corporations whose statutes say they may “sue and be sued.”

United States v. The Thekla, 266 U.S. 328 (1924), held that when the United States asserts a claim in a collision case, the court may decide a cross-claim against it on the same subject. The passage about a “state, county, municipality” waiving immunity is not in that case or in Lyders v. Lund (1929), which concerned a Danish consul.

How to check the judicial immunity claim yourself

The best test of judicial immunity is simple: look for a court that accepted it. We have not found one in the reported decisions. Next, read the actual law the claim points to. For example, check the statute, the UCC section or the constitutional text it cites. Then compare that text with what the claim says it means. For a real problem with a debt, a court case or a tax bill, a licensed attorney can explain your actual options. Our directory is a good place to start.

Sources and further reading

Official sources used on this page:

• static.case.law
• static.case.law
• static.case.law
• law.cornell.edu
• static.case.law

Related reading on Lawtopolis:

• Sovereignty of the People: Chisholm, Yick Wo, Perry and the Supremacy of the Constitution
• Unrebutted Affidavits, Commercial Maxims and Discharge Bonds
• The "Right to Travel" Affidavit: Every Authority Reviewed