Tower v. Glover

Background

Two Oregon public defenders represented Billy Irl Glover in state robbery trials that resulted in convictions. Glover filed a federal civil-rights suit on December 12, 1980, alleging the lawyers conspired with judges and the former state Attorney General to secure his convictions. He did not ask to overturn his convictions or for compensatory damages; he sought five million dollars in punitive damages from each lawyer. The Federal District Court dismissed the suit, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, and the Supreme Court reviewed whether the defenders had immunity.

Reasoning

The central question was whether state public defenders have immunity from Section 1983 lawsuits when accused of intentionally conspiring with state officials to deprive a defendant of federal rights. The Court said Section 1983 contains no express immunity and looked to history and common-law practice. It found no 1871 common-law immunity for public defenders and noted that English barristers historically had no immunity for intentional misconduct. Because this case involves alleged intentional conspiratorial misconduct, the Court concluded public defenders are not immune from liability under Section 1983. The Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings.

Real world impact

The ruling allows criminal defendants to bring federal civil-rights suits claiming conspiracies that involve public defenders and seek punitive damages for intentional misconduct. Lower courts must address remaining procedural questions, such as exhaustion of state remedies and collateral estoppel, on remand. The Court also said broader policy choices about immunity burdens belong to Congress rather than the judiciary.