Jacqueline Stevens v. U.S. Attorney General
877 F.3d 1293
11th Cir.2017Background
- Jacqueline Stevens, a journalist and political-science professor, sought to observe immigration hearings in Atlanta and had previously criticized Immigration Judge William Cassidy.
- On Oct. 7, 2009, and Apr. 19, 2010, Stevens was excluded from certain hearings after Judge Cassidy closed them to the public; on Apr. 19 she was later escorted out of the courthouse by private security.
- Stevens sued under Bivens for damages against Judge Cassidy (individual capacity) and EOIR officials (including Fran Mooney), and sought injunctive and declaratory relief.
- The district court dismissed Cassidy (absolute judicial immunity) and dismissed damages claims against Mooney for failure to plead personal involvement; it also dismissed injunctive claims for lack of standing and declined declaratory relief.
- On appeal the Eleventh Circuit affirmed: it held Immigration Judges are entitled to absolute judicial immunity for judicial acts (including courtroom closure and orders to remove persons from courthouse) and affirmed dismissal of Mooney and denial of declaratory relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Immigration Judges are entitled to absolute judicial immunity | Immunity should be limited; IJ acts here were not purely judicial given alleged tracking and nonjudicial motives | IJs perform adjudicative functions analogous to judges/ALJs; immunity protects independence | Yes: Immigration Judges get absolute immunity for judicial acts |
| Whether Judge Cassidy acted in a judicial capacity and in clear absence of jurisdiction when closing hearings and ordering removal | Cassidy exceeded authority or acted maliciously; removal was outside judicial power | Closing hearings and controlling courtroom (including removal) are judicial functions and within IJ authority | Cassidy acted in judicial capacity and not in clear absence of jurisdiction; immune |
| Whether injunctive relief against Cassidy is barred by immunity | Plaintiff sought injunction to prevent future exclusion | Judicial immunity protects judges from suit and the burdens of litigation including injunctions | Injunctive relief against Cassidy barred by absolute immunity |
| Whether claims against Mooney and other EOIR officials survived Rule 12(b)(6) / standing for injunctive relief | Mooney/administrators participated in monitoring and caused removal; plaintiff likely to be excluded again | Complaint lacks factual allegations showing Mooney’s personal involvement or substantial likelihood of future injury | Affirmed dismissal: complaint fails to plead personal involvement plausibly; no standing for injunctive relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (established implied damages remedy against federal officers for constitutional violations)
- Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193 (1985) (functional approach to judicial immunity; list of factors for immunity)
- Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1978) (absolute immunity for certain adjudicative federal officials; procedural safeguards relevant)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (judge entitled to immunity for acts within judicial jurisdiction even if erroneous)
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991) (focus on nature/function of act, not motive; judge immune even if order executed by others)
- Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2000) (judicial immunity can bar injunctive relief against judges)