Hoffman v. Harris

Background

A father, Ian Hoffman, sued Kentucky’s Cabinet for Human Resources, two of its social workers, and his former wife, saying they took away his right to visit his minor daughter, B. H., and seeking money damages under federal civil-rights law. The dispute began when the mother told social workers she suspected the father of sexually abusing the child. The social workers obtained an ex‑parte state-court order that suspended the father’s visitation. The District Court ruled the social workers were absolutely immune from damages, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed that decision.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court declined to take the case, so the lower-court rulings remain in effect. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, dissented from the denial and would have granted review. In his dissent he questions whether social workers can claim the same absolute immunity once enjoyed by 19th‑century prosecutors, says courts must first find a historical counterpart from 1871 before extending absolute protection, and argues the existing precedents and policy reasons are insufficient to create a broad immunity for modern social workers.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused review, the Sixth Circuit’s approach that can shield social workers from damages for seeking court orders remains binding in that circuit. That means similar lawsuits in the Sixth Circuit may be dismissed on absolute-immunity grounds unless the law changes. The dissent signals that some Justices see the question as important and deserving of full review by the Court.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Thomas’s dissent explains the legal and historical concerns and urges the Court to decide whether social workers ever qualify for absolute immunity under federal civil-rights law.