Judicial Immunity is a form of legal immunity which protects judges and others employed by the judiciary from lawsuits brought against them for official conduct in office.
For example, a judge may not be the subject of a slander or libel suit for statements made about someone during a trial, even if the defamatory statements had nothing to do with the trial at hand, nor may a judge's clerk be sued for negligence in failing to deliver materials to the judge.
The purpose of judicial immunity is twofold: it encourages judges to act in a fair and just manner, without regard to the possible extrinsic harms their acts may cause outside of the scope of their work and it protects government workers from harassment from those whose interests they might negatively affect.
Note, however, that, while the judiciary may be immune from lawsuits involving their actions, they may still be subject to criminal prosecutions. For example, when West Virginia judge Troisi became irritated with a rude defendant, he stepped down from the bench, took off his robe, and bit the defendant on the nose. He spent five days in jail and was put on probation.[1]
Historically, judicial immunity was associated with the English common law idea that "the King can do no wrong." (Compare Sovereign immunity.) Judges, the King's delegates for dispensing justice, accordingly "ought not to be drawn into question for any supposed corruption [for this tends] to the slander of the justice of the King." Floyd & Barker, 12 Co. Rep. 23, 25, 77 Eng. Rep. 1305, 1307 (Star Chamber 1607).
| This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. The talk page may contain suggestions. (April 2010) |
Judicial Immunity is a form of legal immunity which protects judges and others employed by the judiciary from lawsuits brought against them for official conduct in office.
For example, a judge may not be the subject of a slander or libel suit for statements made about someone during a trial, even if the defamatory statements had nothing to do with the trial at hand, nor may a judge's clerk be sued for negligence in failing to deliver materials to the judge.
The purpose of judicial immunity is twofold: it encourages judges to act in a fair and just manner, without regard to the possible extrinsic harms their acts may cause outside of the scope of their work and it protects government workers from harassment from those whose interests they might negatively affect.
Judicial immunity doesn't protect judges from suits stemming from administrative decisions made while off the bench, like hiring and firing decisions. But immunity generally does extend to all judicial decisions in which the judge has proper jurisdiction, even if a decision is made with "corrupt or malicious intent."[1]
Note, however, that, while the judiciary may be immune from lawsuits involving their actions, they may still be subject to criminal prosecutions. For example, when West Virginia judge Troisi became irritated with a rude defendant, he stepped down from the bench, took off his robe, and bit the defendant on the nose. He spent five days in jail and was put on probation.[2]
Historically, judicial immunity was associated with the English common law idea that "the King can do no wrong." (Compare Sovereign immunity.) Judges, the King's delegates for dispensing justice, accordingly "ought not to be drawn into question for any supposed corruption [for this tends] to the slander of the justice of the King." [3]
In 2006, a proposed Judicial Accountability Initiative Law for Judges, promoted by an organization called J.A.I.L. 4 Judges,[4] sought to eliminate judicial immunity.[5] Sandra Day O'Connor criticized it as judicial intimidation[6] and the American Bar Association also opposed it.[7]
|
|
Wikis
Quiz
Map
Search
