Gerald Morgan v. Bd. of Prof. Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tenn., 63 F.4th 510

Gerald Morgan was hired in 2019 as Disciplinary Counsel for Tennessee’s Board of Professional Responsibility; tweets he posted in 2015–2016 criticizing Muslims were later attached to a litigant’s motion to disqualify him from a state-court appeal.
The Board moved for Morgan to withdraw from the appeal; he did so, and shortly thereafter Sandra Garrett (Chief Disciplinary Counsel) fired Morgan, citing bias concerns, an external misconduct complaint, and his tweets.
The Board opened a disciplinary file against Morgan later; that file was dismissed.
Morgan sued the Board and Garrett (pleading Garrett in her individual capacity) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for wrongful termination and sought injunctive relief (including expungement of any disciplinary records) and money damages.
The district court dismissed injunctive claims against the Board (Eleventh Amendment) and damages against the Board; it also dismissed the damages claim against Garrett on absolute quasi‑judicial immunity grounds.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal as to the Board but reversed dismissal of Morgan’s money‑damages claim against Garrett, holding firing was not entitled to absolute quasi‑judicial immunity and remanding for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ex parte Young allows injunctive relief to expunge records and prevent future adverse action	Morgan: expungement and prevention of future disciplinary action are prospective relief for ongoing harm under Ex parte Young	Defendants: Eleventh Amendment bars suit; Morgan did not sue Garrett in official capacity so Ex parte Young doesn’t apply	Court: Dismissal of injunctive relief against Board affirmed; Ex parte Young unavailable because complaint did not sue Garrett in her official capacity (dismissal without prejudice)
Whether § 1983 money damages may be recovered from the Board	Morgan: § 1983 claim for wrongful termination	Board: sovereign immunity bars § 1983 money damages	Held: Affirmed — Eleventh Amendment bars money damages against the Board
Whether Garrett is entitled to absolute quasi‑judicial (judicial) immunity for terminating Morgan	Morgan: firing is an administrative/employment decision, not a judicial act; no absolute immunity	Garrett: termination relates to protecting judicial process and Rule 9 grants immunity to Disciplinary Counsel	Held: Reversed district court — quasi‑judicial immunity does not cover Garrett’s termination decision (administrative act)
Whether Garrett is entitled to qualified immunity	Morgan: N/A in opinion	Garrett: asserted qualified immunity (not decided below)	Court: Declined to decide qualified immunity on appeal; remanded for further proceedings

Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (permits prospective injunctive relief against state officials to stop ongoing federal‑law violations despite Eleventh Amendment)
Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (states are not ‘‘persons’’ under § 1983; Eleventh Amendment bars suits for money damages against states)
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (two‑part functional test for determining judicial acts)
Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (1988) (judicial immunity is function‑based; administrative acts are not absolutely immune)
Guercio v. Brody, 814 F.2d 1115 (6th Cir. 1987) (hiring/firing by a judge is administrative and not protected by judicial immunity)
Doe v. Cummins, [citation="662 F. App'x 437"] (6th Cir. 2016) (expungement of adverse records is prospective relief under Ex parte Young)
Thomson v. Harmony, 65 F.3d 1314 (6th Cir. 1995) (recognizing expungement/removal of negative personnel records as available equitable relief)
Doe v. Purdue Univ., 928 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2019) (expungement of disciplinary record constitutes relief from continuing harm)
Barrett v. Harrington, 130 F.3d 246 (6th Cir. 1997) (acts that protect integrity of judicial process may be adjudicatory; distinguishes from administrative acts)
Thiokol Corp. v. Dep’t of Treasury, 987 F.2d 376 (6th Cir. 1993) (Eleventh Amendment bars suits for injunctive and monetary relief against arms of the state)