Buckley v. Fitzsimmons

Background

The suit was brought by a man who spent years jailed after being accused in the widely reported murder of an 11‑year‑old. He says county prosecutors helped manufacture a false expert identification tying his boots to a footprint, then announced the indictment at a campaign‑timed press conference with allegedly false statements. After a mistrial, a third party confessed and the charges were later dropped. He sued under a federal civil‑rights law (Section 1983) for damages, claiming constitutional harm from the fabricated evidence and the press statements.

Reasoning

The Court reviewed whether prosecutors are immune from such lawsuits. It relied on earlier decisions saying prosecutors acting as advocates in court or closely tied to the judicial process get full protection (absolute immunity). But the Court held that investigative and administrative work done before there is probable cause—like shopping for a willing expert to produce evidence—is not in the prosecutor’s advocacy role and therefore is not covered by absolute immunity (it may get only limited protection called qualified immunity). Likewise, public, out‑of‑court press statements are not historically covered by absolute immunity, so they too are not fully protected.

Real world impact

The ruling allows some civil claims to proceed against prosecutors for knowingly fabricated pretrial evidence and for inflammatory press announcements. It does not answer whether those claims will ultimately win and leaves open the question of qualified immunity on remand. The opinion preserves absolute immunity for truly courtroom advocacy and for presentation of evidence in judicial proceedings.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Scalia agreed with the result. Justice Kennedy (joined by three Justices) disagreed about the bootprint work, arguing pretrial consultation with trial witnesses should be absolutely immune to avoid chilling prosecutors.