Mireles v. Waco

Background

A Los Angeles County public defender says that in November 1989 a state trial judge, angry about absent attorneys, ordered police to seize and bring him into the judge’s courtroom and that officers used excessive force. The defender sued the judge under a federal civil-rights law for money damages. The trial court dismissed the claim against the judge as barred by judicial immunity; the Ninth Circuit reversed that dismissal.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court granted review and summarily reversed the Court of Appeals. The Court explained that judges generally have immunity from suits for money damages when they perform functions normally done by judges. Directing court officers or police to bring someone before the court is a function the Court said is normally performed by a judge, so that direction is treated as “judicial.” The Court also emphasized that immunity is not lost merely because the judge may have acted wrongly, maliciously, or in excess of authority. The Court noted two narrow limits on immunity: acts that are not judicial in nature and acts taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.

Real world impact

The decision restores dismissal of the money-damages claim against the judge and makes it harder for people to sue judges for conduct tied to carrying out court business. It leaves open questions when a judge truly acts outside any jurisdiction; in such rare cases immunity would not apply.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stevens argued ordering officers to commit a battery is nonjudicial and so not immune. Justice Scalia (joined by Kennedy) criticized the Court’s summary reversal and would have denied review without briefing.