In my previous article entitled, Why the Supreme Court Gave Judges Absolute Immunity at the Expense of Our “Guaranteed” 14th Amendment Rights in the Constitution one of the reasons the Supreme court decided to give judges absolute judicial immunity because Judicial immunity had “never been denied… in the courts of [the United States].” In this article we will discuss the specific cases the states made before the Supreme Court stated that immunity had never been denied in the US.
Is that historically accurate? Had judges never been denied judicial immunity in the US?
The Supreme Court in Randall v. Brigham ruled that judges of general jurisdiction were not civilly liable for judicial acts, even when they exceeded their jurisdiction, “unless perhaps when the acts, in excess of jurisdiction, are done maliciously or corruptly.”
In 1871, there was “substantial variation about judicial immunity from state to state.” Indeed, while “thirteen states followed the rule of absolute immunity,” “six states had ruled that judges [were] not immune if they act[ed] maliciously,” consistent with the rule the Court articulated in Randall.26 Meanwhile, “nine states had considered the issue of immunity but had not ruled definitively on it,”27 and “nine other states had not considered the issue.” So in reality, far from being settled, judicial immunity in some states was not absolute at all. Look for civil rights lawyer if you are a victim.
Supreme Court justices who specialize in the constitution.
So, decades ago when the Supreme Court ruled on judicial immunity and said that judges had “never been denied… in the courts of [the United States].” they were either lying or did not do their research. Either way, the consequences of this have been incredible. Countless fathers and mothers have committed suicide and suffer from extreme depression. Whistle blowers like me have been destroyed financially on top of having my kids taken away. I have had to pay phantom legal fees, face approximately 70 court hearings in a matter of 3 years, had my career destroyed and was rendered homeless and had to go south and live in a tent just to survive the winter.
This is why I firmly believe we need Supreme Court Justices that specialize in the constitution to receive those appointments. Justices who don’t have that background are more likely to take the laws and ideas from their own state and apply them in their rulings. The rulings on the constitution are entirely different from state laws. They are the application of us as a collective of all the states. Therefore, justices who specialize in constitution make much more sense to be in that position.
In the next article entitled, “Are Judges Included in the Color of Law Definition?“
Footnotes:
26 Yale has an excellant article I got these references from. Please see: Indiana: State ex rel. Conley v. Flinn, 3 Blackf. 72 (1832); State ex rel. Robinson v. Littlefield, 4 Blackf. 129 (1835). Iowa: Wasson v. Mitchell, 18 Iowa 153 (1864). Kentucky: Revill v. Pettit, 60 Ky. 314 (1860); Gregory v. Brown, 4 Bibb 28 (1815). Maryland: Friend v. Hamill, 34 Md. 479 (1862). South Carolina: State ex rel. Tavel v. Jersey, 4 Strobh. 304 (1850); Macon v. Cook, 2 N. & McC. 168 (1819). Tennessee: Cope v. Ramsey, 49 Tenn. 197 (1870); Hoggatt v. Bigley, 25 Tenn. 236 (1845).
27 Harvard Law Review, 136 Harv. L. R. 1456, Judicial Immunity at the (Second) Founding: A New Perspective on § 1983