Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc.

Background

A man convicted of bank robbery appealed and ordered a transcript of his two-day federal trial from the court reporter who had worked the case. The reporter missed court deadlines for years, lost many notes, and was even fined and briefly arrested as courts tried to obtain the transcript. Because the delay postponed the appeal for several years, the convicted defendant sued the reporter and her employing firm for damages. The District Court ruled the reporter had absolute immunity, and the Court of Appeals agreed, producing a split among federal appeals courts.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether court reporters are entitled to absolute immunity from damages suits for failing to produce verbatim trial transcripts. Looking at history and statutes, the Court found reporters today are charged by law to make a complete, word-for-word record and have little or no discretion in how they do it. Absolute immunity protects officials who exercise core judicial judgment; it does not protect officials who perform ministerial recording duties. The Court therefore rejected the claim that reporters are absolutely immune and found the policy reasons for immunity unpersuasive without congressional action.

Real world impact

The ruling means court reporters can be sued for damages in some cases when they fail to provide transcripts, and defendants and others delayed by missing records may pursue civil claims. The Supreme Court reversed the appeals court and sent the case back for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, so final liability and damages still must be decided by lower courts. Congress could still change the rule by amending the law.