Absolute Immunity – Well, Not Quite

Many a litigant, and even some attorneys, likely desired to sue a judge for money damages when rulings were made against them in their case. While quick online legal research will reveal many such cases, that same search will also reveal that judges generally enjoy absolute immunity from such cases for their actions on the bench. The general rule of thumb is that so long as a judge had subject matter jurisdiction over a particular case, that judge was absolutely immune from suit relating to the court’s rulings. But as with most rules, there are exceptions.

In 1984, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a state Magistrate Judge was liable for over $80,000 in attorneys’ fees because some criminal defendants obtained injunctive relief, not a money judgment, against Magistrate Pulliam for violating their civil rights. Because they prevailed in obtaining injunctive relief, the defendants were entitled to attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988. Surely to the surprise of Magistrate Pulliam, the Supreme Court found that judicial immunity did not preclude injunctive relief or the statutory award of fees generated in obtaining such relief. See Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984). However, Congress effectively reversed the Pulliam decision for all judges when it enacted the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996 which amended 42 U.S.C. 1983 to provide for judicial immunity to suits seeking injunctions, unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable, as well as for money damages. Despite being called the “Federal Courts Improvement Act,” the legislation amended the federal civil rights statute and extended judicial immunity to all judges (state and federal) for injunctive relief sought under § 1983.

In Illinois, there are two recognized exceptions to absolute judicial immunity: 1) Actions not taken in a judge’s judicial capacity, and 2) actions taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction. These are extremely narrow exceptions with limited application. Judicial immunity is not overcome even by allegations of bad faith or malice. 

While the two exceptions to the doctrine are narrow, they are still exceptions to the rule. The rule also does not protect judges against complaints that their actions violated a declaratory decree, which was an exception written-in to the Federal Courts Improvement Act. In addition, jurists can still be called to respond to complaints about their conduct filed by the Judicial Inquiry Board, or torts committed outside of their judicial capacity, or to defend against complaints alleging criminal conduct. 

The notion of absolute immunity may create in judges a sense of security, and it should, but it may be a false sense of security because absolute immunity does not cover absolutely.