Cynthia A. Forrester v. Judge Howard Lee White

POSNER, Judge worked under White’s direct su- Before ESCHBACH and Cir She TIMBERS, until her As an Judges, pervision Senior Circuit termination. cuit officer,1 prepared pre- Judge.* adult-probation she * Timbers, (2) any notify previous To the court of con- Honorable William H. Senior Cir- Circuit, previous probation any sitting by viction for crime Judge for the Second cuit invoking provisions this act. defendant designation. (3) reports required in All and notifications by probation this Act to be made officer shall statutory adult-probation offi- duties of an writing be in shall be filed the clerk in Ill.Rev.Stat., j[ ch. cer are set forth respective cases. (1983), as follows: (4) preserve complete To and accurate (1) investigate required by To as section including investigated, de- records of cases Corrections”, 5-3-1 of the "Unified Code of scription person investigated, the action 26, 1972, amended, approved July the case respect of the court with to his case and probation. any person placed to be Full history per- probation, subsequent of such opportunity shall be afforded a offi- son, during probationer, if he becomes a investiga- person cer to confer with the under probation, which records continuancе of his custody. person by any judge tion when such is in open inspection shall be pursuant to order self, sentencing reports felony in all cases for or worked with Attorney the State’s consider, filing in juvenile monitored actions cases court. juve- When placed probation, filed, adults and filed nile-court cases were she assisted in preparing hearings; addition, recommendations for revocations as neces- them for officer,2 sary. juvenile-probation As a For- she made disposition recommendations investigated complaints prepared pre-sentencing rester received and and reports for the offenders, regarding possible deciding status abuse to consider what should cases, neglect juveniles charged juvenile. and and done juvenile be When a investiga- placed supervision with criminal conduct. After an under was or on tion, agen- probation, she referred such cases to social she juvenile monitored the to treatment, provided counseling cies for complying her- assure that he was with the court, record, public statutory juvenile-probation shall not be a and its 2. The duties of a divulged Ill.Rev.Stat., be contents shall not otherwise thаn officer are set forth in ch. provided, except upon jf (1983), as above order of 706-1 as follows: court. (a) receive, investigate To and evaluate (5) charge To take of and watch over all complaints indicating delinquency, behavior persons placed probation regu- on under such requiring supervision, neglect otherwise or may pre- lations and for such terms as be dependency, meaning within the 2-5; of Sections court, by giving pro- scribed and to each through to determine or assist the full as bationer instructions to the terms of complainant determining peti- whether a upon probation requiring his release and tion should be filed under Section 4-1 or periodical reports from him such as shall agency, whether referral to an association or keep the officer informed to his conduct. person or whether some other action is (6) develop operate programs To and advisable; indicating and to see that the fil- public any per- reasonable work service ing, accomplished. referral or other action is placed supervision, pro- probation sons on (b) petition When a is filed under Section howevеr, viding, probation that no officer or 4-1, prehearing investigations to make any employee probation acting of a office formulate recommendations to the court. the course his official duties shall be liable (c) and, court, To counsel order of to any person placed tortious acts of court; supervise minors referred to the to probation supervision as a condition of casework, programs conduct indicated in- probation supervision, except for wilful cluding referrals for medical and mental gross negligence part misconduct or service, on the organized job health recreation and probation employee. officers or and, placement for wards of the court person assigned No to a service em- appropriate, family for members of the of a ployment program ward; shall be considered an em- to act as liaison officer between the ployee any purpose, county nor shall agencies court and or associations to which obligated provide any compensa- through board be to minors are referred or person. placed; tion to such appointed, when so to serve as (7) court; any person probation guardian person When removes of a ward of the county provide probation supervision protec- from the where his offense was com- mitted, court; duty supervision it shall be the of the officer tive ordered and to placed report provide probation- under whose care he was like services to wards and county jurisdictions facts to the officer in the ers of courts in other counties or removed; probationer lawfully which the and it who have become local residents. (d) thereupon duty pro- arrange placements pursuant become the shall of such To charge bation officer to take of and watch court order. (e) probationer responsibility over said the same as if the case To assume administrative detention, originated county; pur- in that and for that for such care shelter and other pose power may oper- he shall have the same au- institutions for minors as the court thority probationer over said as if he had ate. (f) originally placed charge; adequate system been in said officer’s To maintain an of case records, records, required report and such officer shall be statistical and financial writing super- juvenile of his once month results records related to detention and shel- reports vision to the in whose ter care and to make to the court and charge probationer originally persons, gov- the said was other authorized and to other placed by lawfully requiring the court. ernmental bodies them. (8) perform (g) perform may such other To duties as are To such other services as provided appropriate purposes for in this act or rules of court be to effectuate the implied by any and such incidental duties as this Act or as be directed order of expressly required. from those court made under this Act. necessary, terms of court orders. When Judge with co-workers and White are rea- she recommended revocations. sons for her demotion and termination that sex, are not related to her and will not be performed these duties until Forrester considered. time, July Jersey County 1979. At that from the State of Illinois July received Forrester filed an action in Jersey County operate Juvenile federal district sought court and recovеry Project. Court Intake and Referral Services Rights under Title VII of the Civil Act of project designed juve- divert as well as 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the system by providing niles from the court Fourteenth procedural Amendment. The remedying history litigation alternative methods of involved; of this is rather started, problems. project Judge When the transpired much of what below is not rele- appointed Project White Forrester the Su- judicial-immunity question vant to the pervisor her duties increased commen- will not say be discussed. Suffice it to surably. capacity, respon- In this she was pursues Forrester appeal only her directing project claim, supervising sible and 1983 in alleged which she that she § members, establishing staff an office was demoted and by Judge and terminated records, procedures, maintaining new mak- White on the basis her sex in violation of ing reports, ensuring program and that the equal-protection clause of the Four- requirements. met federal and state She Although teenth Amendment. initially she required sought was also to recruit advocate vol- equitable relief, both monetary juveniles, unteer counselors to work with damages her claim for remains on agencies, appeal. contract with other social-services develop community organization 1983 jury, claim was tried homes, provide manage foster which returned a verdict for Forrester and addition, In relations. Forrester did $82,000 approximately awarded compen- in large portion juveniles of the work with satory damages. The district court denied grant project under the and continued to do Judge White’s judgment motion for not-

juvenile probation work. verdict, withstanding granted discharged Judge motion for a

White Forrester on October new trial. White then 1,1980. filed summary judgment Forrester also claims a motion for in that she was argued improperly which he that he prior demoted to her was entitled to dismissal. parties civil-damage We note from a presented evi- agreed The district relating dence at trial award. court and en- to conflicts between judgment tered in Forrester and favor of the defendant. a male co-worker and to dis- putes appeals.3 Forrester now Judge between Forrester and White regarding Forrester’s schedule. These II facts, however, pertinent are not disposition appeal, of this In deciding because Forres- whether the district alleged ter has correctly Judge that she was discriminated in ruled White’s fa Thus, vor, on the of her general basis sex. we must first consider the considering principles of the district propriety behind the defense. judicial immunity, country England court’s decision we Courts in this have Judge must assume that White demoted judicial immunity embraced the doctrine of Supreme dismissed Forrester on the basis of her for centuries.4 The Court first disputes sex. The Forrester had have articulated the current in Bradley doctrine 4. For a discussion of the challenges grant development both Forrester summa- ry judgment Allen, and the of a new trial. England, doctrine in see Pulliam v. 466 522, view of our decision 528-36, 1970, 1974-78, defendant abso- U.S. 104 S.Ct. 80 lutely civil-damage liability, immune from we (1984). L.Ed.2d 565 express propriety no as to the ruling district court’s on the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

651 Fisher, 335, (18 Wall.) depend 80 U.S. 20 L.Ed. on the motives of v. judge; that, (1872), thus, in which it ruled order 646 it is available even if independent safeguard principled acting de maliciously corruptly. accused of cision-making, judge may (13 Wall.) not be held to Bradley, 80 U.S. 351; see also at “judicial Pierson, in civil 554, answer those 386 U.S. at 87 S.Ct. at 1218. “juri of his committed in the exercise remembered, however, acts” It must be that it is Spark Stump See also sdiction.”5 public, corrupt for the benefit 349, 1099, man, Pulliam, 55 judges. 466 104 U.S. Ray, Pierson (1978); L.Ed.2d Bradley, 1976; Wall.) (13 S.Ct. at U.S. 18 L.Ed.2d 288 U.S. Judge explained at 350. As Learned Hand simply The defense does not shield Biddle, Gregoire (2d 177 F.2d 579 liability, from civil from the but also Cir.1949), U.S. Mitchell v. For proceedings. related trial (1950): S.Ct. 94 L.Ed. 1363 — U.S.-, 2806, 2816, syth, go saying It does indeed without that an (1985).6 not, however, It will L.Ed.2d official, guilty using is in fact relief, see protect injunctive from powers spleen others, vent his upon Allen, 541-42,104 Pulliam personal con- motive not 1970, 1981, (1984), or public good, nected should not see O’Shea v. prosecution, criminal escape liability injuries so he Littleton, 488, 503, cause; and, prac- possible if it were parte Vir- (1974); Ex tice to confine such complaints (10 Otto) 339, L.Ed. ginia, 100 U.S. 25 676 guilty, deny it would be monstrous (1879). addition, judicial immunity In is a recovery. justification doing so solely creature of the common law.7 How- impossible is that it is to know whether ever, although it had au- the constitutional is the claim well founded until case ‍​‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‍the so, abrogate thority Congress to do did not tried, been all submit enacting in 1 the the defense of Civil § officials, the innocent as well as the 1871, 42 Rights Act of now codified at guilty, to the burden of a trial and Pierson, See 1983. U.S.C. 386 U.S. at § danger outcome, inevitable of its 554-55, 87 S.Ct. at 1217-18.8 dampen the ardor of all but most resolute, irresponsible, or the most in scope of the defense will be unflinching discharge of their broadly рur construed its duties. effectuate Hosemann, poses, Dykes 942, Again again v. interest calls 776 Cir.1985) (en curiam), (11th banc) may which turn (per 947 action out mistake, applies, it and does on a in and when is absolute founded the face Thus, Bradley, judicial immunity 5. Prior to the Court in Ran- 7. differs the im- had stated 523, (7 Wall.) Brigham, munity Congress, dall v. 19 afforded members of as the (1868), respon- L.Ed.2d 285 were guaranteed Speech latter is or Debate private parties I, sible "to in civil for their actions § Clause of Art. 6 of the Constitution. See acts, injurious be those however McMillan, 306, generally v. 412 S.Ct. Doe U.S. 93 acts, they may and however much deserve con- 2018, (1973); Tenney L.Ed.2d 912 Bran- 36 demnation, perhaps unless where acts are 367, dhove, 783, U.S. 1019 341 95 L.Ed. jurisdiction palpably in excess addition, (1951). In affords judges, corruptly." maliciously and are done legislative protection immunity under less than added). (emphasis Bradley, Id. at 537 See, Speech e.g., Debate Clause. Dennis and conclud- Court reconsidered that statement 24, 30, 187, Sparks, U.S. 66 449 qualifying ed that “the words used were not (1980). L.Ed.2d 185 necessary to a the law.” correct statement of 80 (13 Wall.) at U.S. 351. did, however, Congress abrogate 8. the defense awarding purpose attorney’s fees under primarily It for this reason district- prospective 42 U.S.C. 1988 in сases where concerning decisions injunctive granted. See relief immediately appealable. v. For- Mitchell Allen, 522, 543-44, — S.Ct. Pulliam v. 104 2806, 2815, —, —, syth, U.S. S.Ct. 1970, 1981-82, (1984). 80 (1985). L.Ed.2d private rights an official later find himself the need for action for put satisfy jury hard to it to of his damages against judges. Bradley, See good faith. There must indeed be means (13 Wall.) U.S. at 347-54. To these consid punishing public officers who have erations, one should add a sixth: the need duties; to their but that is been truant quiescence finality judg to assure quite exposing another matter from such reducing possible ment the number of honestly as have mistaken to suit been challenges collateral decisions. by anyone who has suffered from their Walker, Holloway See 765 F.2d case, often errors. As is so the an- (5th Cir.), U.S.-, in be found a balance between swer must the evils inevitable either alternative. course, Of if the concerns articulated in thought In this instance it has been Bradley favor of were the end to leave unredressed the better consider, ones we should then there wrongs done dishonest officers than countervailing would be no force and im subject try duty those to do their munity expand aspects should all cover dread of to the constant retaliation. life, judge’s professional private. of a added). (emphasis 177 F.2d at 581 See also undoubtedly It vexing for a to be (4th McCray Maryland, litigation arising named as a defendant in Thus, Cir.1972). the effect of the doctrine of, example, out an automobile accident may be at times harsh the individual thus, dispute; domestic case, Stump, 435 U.S. at aggravations would reach these so that a conflicting because interests define judge might rule without distraction on the The defense However, cases him. before we must take presents general a tension between the dismissing into account the cost of merito that, particular, and demonstrates complaints against judicial rious officers. safeguard judicial system gen- order to The case law has drawn a line between are, erally, injustice some instances of un- implicating those activities the substance of id.; fortunately, inevitable. See Math- cf. decision in the cases him before Eldridge, ews v. and those that consume the (1976); Heckler, Stephens 47 L.Ed.2d 18 time, energy, money, and should 284, (7th Cir.1985). 766 F.2d influence the substance of those decisions. Supreme in Bradley Court identified See, 330, e.g., Harvey, Harris v. support five considerations (7th Cir.1979), denied, 336 cert. 445 U.S. First, immunity. must be able to 938, 1331, (1980); 100 63 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 772 appre- act on his own convictions without (9th Gregory Thompson, 500 F.2d 59 Second, pеrsonal consequences. hension of Cir.1974). sum, In immunity does not litigation necessarily because involves con- judges general shield from the trials of life interests, troversy competing losing and ly- parties quick are mo- ascribe malevolent suggests, As the discussion it is above Third, judge. tives to a because of the (that is, nature the act committed faith, alleging qualified ease of bad process adjudica- relation it has to the “good virtually faith” would be tion), identity not the of the actor who the desideratum of an worthless secure it, commits that determines whether immu- Fourth, independent judiciary. pros- nity applies. Supreme See Court Vir- defending civil-damage pect of actions and Union, 719, ginia v. Consumers 446 U.S. satisfying judgments would force 1967, (1980); 100 64 L.Ed.2d 641 devices, S.Ct. Butz employ distracting wasteful and 478, Economou, 2894, 98 S.Ct. unnecessarily such as meticulous record- (1978); guard against Stump, 57 895 435 U.S. at keeping, liability L.Ed.2d 362, Using render less inclined to rule S.Ct. functional test, im- forthrightly. Finally, safeguards, the courts have extended absolute (other appeal impeachment, munity participants judges) such as reduce than (other 1981), judicial process though and to in the officials even their decisions are not carry judges) “quasi-judicial” subject than out superior reviеw tribunal. Supreme has, functions. The Court rely One must at times devices other granted example, to fed appellate Article III than and direct review examiners, hearing eral administrative law to control action. Nixon v. Cf. witnesses, grand judges, jurors, and feder 731, 39, Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 757-58 & n. prosecutors. Cleavinger al and state See 2690, 39, 102 S.Ct. 2705 & n. 73 L.Ed.2d 349 — Saxner, —, —, U.S. (1985). This 88 L.Ed.2d 507 Thus, the decision to allow the defense of provided immunity similarly de situated judicial immunity particular in a case calls See, Schmidt, e.g., fendants. Scott v. balancing for a of these competing con- (7th Cir.1985) (harness racing F.2d 160 Sparks, cerns. Dennis v. 31- U.S. counsel); Schools, Nursery Mother Goose 183, 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 185 Sendak, (7th Cir.1985) 770 F.2d 668 Inc. v. (1980); 942; Dykes, 776 F.2d at Gregory, (state attorney general reviewing 500 F.2d at 63 n. 4. The “judicial terms state), contracts on behalf of “jurisdiction” self-evident, act” and are not — —, U.S. signal conclusion, rather than (1986); Klincar, 748 F.2d Trotter v. beginning, of a chain of inferences. (7th Cir.1984) board); (parole Reed v. Vil given depends characterization an act Shorewood, (7th 704 F.2d 943 lage Cir. weight on the of the interests at stake. 1983) commission); (liquor Ashbrook v. acts, however, For certain such as the ren- (7th Cir.1980)(state Hoffman, 617 F.2d 474 dering judgment, of a the balance is commission). partition straight-forward law, therefore, At times the courts have relied on the Seе, e.g., Letsinger, settled. Lowe v. presence of other controls on ac- (7th Cir.1985). For other tion, ‍​‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‍availability such as the acts, a critical evaluation of the concerns review, appellate determining whether to underlying required. the defense is See, e.g., Cleavinger, allow the defense. surprising It is plaintiffs that the at-, (1985); 106 S.Ct. at 503-04 majority against judicial of suits offi- Economou, Butz v. cers in which the doctrine is suc- (1978). However, cessfully litigants invoked are either actual array procedural full of alternative safe- (as Stump) an individuals with inter- guards prerequisite is not a cases, litigation. est these 368-69, Stump, 435 See U.S. at Bradley progeny concerns of and its (Stewart, J., dissenting); at 1111 implicated question. without There is an- Goose, 6; Reed, Mother 770 F.2d at 675 n. cases, however, in other line of which a addition, 704 F.2d at 952. In it has been employee judge brings former of suit Bradley clear since that an official does challenging his dismissal. As we will ex- not have to serve under terms similar to below, plain in- the rationale of decisions (that is, appointment III those of Article volving litigants disgruntled is not neces- in with life tenure and no reduction com- sarily applicable involving to those former pensation) in order to invoke defense. judicial employees. Indeed, above, immunity as noted absolute disagree scope The federal courts on the prosecutors and to has been extended to immunity for decisions re defense members, grand-jury though both ex- even garding judicial personnel. See Goodwin authority subject to little re- ercise Court, (8th 541, v. Circuit enjoy independence of view and do not Cir.) hearing token, (judge’s transfer of officer By federal the same no one judges. administrative, decision; judicial, not reasonably argue could that the Justices of immune), judge absolutely not Supreme are not thus cert. the United States Court — 112, denied, —, U.S. 83 judicial immunity, see entitled — (D.C.Cir. (1984) —, 105 Burger, 655 F.2d 1265 L.Ed.2d 55 U.S. Moore v. 654 Laskow 1194, (1985); judge 84 L.Ed.2d 339 the modern prede

S.Ct. differs from his Mears, (N.D.Ind. ski v. F.Supp. 600 1568 cessor in that he rely must more on his 1985) (if relationship officer decisions, staff advice on for substantive judge’s independence, then dis implicates and that certain research functions former Dunn, v. act); Cronovich judicial missal ly performed by are now accom 1340, (E.D.Mich.1983) F.Supp. 1342 573 part plished his staff. A personnel (scope judges’ personality, therefore, institutional extends unclear), Id., 1330, F.Supp. decision 573 beyond person. Thus, brought by suits (E.D.Mich.1983) (failure appoint 1335 personnel may power former court have a plaintiff judiсial as Friend of Court not ful, indirect, rights albeit effect on the Cook, Blackwell v. act); F.Supp. 474 570 litigants. dispositive question par in a (N.D.Ind.1983) (judge absolutely immune ticular case is whether that effect an bears challenging family 1983 suit dismissal of appropriate relationship judicial pro to the office); county probation counselor cess, and hence warrants a of immu Blackburn, (W.D. Lewis F.Supp. 555 713 nity. N.C.1983) (decision by judge not to state pause for a We moment to consider the act), rev’d magistrate reappoint not immunity applicable person- (4th Cir.), grounds, other 759 F.2d 1171 nonjudicial nel decisions Al- officials. cert. —, U.S. 88 though indi- accorded these (1985); v. St. Louis 288 L.Ed.2d Marafino controlling not necessarily viduals is Court, County Circuit F.Supp. 537 206 us, may provide strong sup- case before (E.D.Mo.1982) sought (plaintiff posi port ruling, for our juvenile-court attorney tion as staff could shaped and informed a similar rationale. discriminatory Title VII in action invoke Fitzgerald, Nixon In 102 attorney to hire refusal because staff does (1982), 73 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 349 exam- capacity), not deal with latter’s ple, Supreme Court held that the Presi- grounds, 707 'd aff absolutely dent was immune from suits Cir.1983); Kimbrough, (8th Pruitt v. 1005 personnel based on decisions. (state F.Supp. (N.D.Ind.1982) action, Har- Court also noted in a rеlated pro immune from for dismissal Fitzgerald, 800, 811-13,102 low v. mem., officer), bation 705 F.2d 462 affd 2735-36, (1982), 73 L.Ed.2d 396 Campbell, (7th Cir.1983); Clark v. presidential might, aides under certain (W.D. 1981) F.Supp. (county Ark. circumstances, enjoy the same judge, hiring firing county employ decisions. for these ees, function); performing legislators, With reference to the Court Howard, (N.D. Shore 414 F.Supp. ruling. provided has not definitive Tex.1976) (state judge’s proba dismissal Passman, Davis v. U.S. Abbott v. judicial act); tion officer cf. (1979), con a former (en Thetford, (5th Cir.1976) F.2d 1101 gressional alleged staff that a member Pickering banc) (under balancing test of Congressman had, United in viola Education, States Board Amendment, Fifth tion of the discriminated (1968), judicial terminating on the of sex in her. The basis in civil-rights challenging not liable action plaintiff Court concluded that the was as discharge officer), of chief right, denied, 1598, serting constitutionally protected 954, 430 U.S. 97 51 S.Ct. action, complaint (1977). that her stated a case of uncertainty 804 in L.Ed.2d This the understandable, appropriate and that were the case law is deci because Nonetheless, regarding remedy. pains it was at personnel depart sions that, Bradley point upholding com paradigm from the of and its out while However, progeny. plaint, expressed possi no that doеs not mean on the is, immunity immunity It that is not ble defenses of the defendant available. 11, n. See example, importance Congressman. of fundamental that 442 236 U.S. at 655 25, 249, Thus, 99 at 2272 n. placing 246 n. S.Ct. 2278 far Bivens v. Six Unknown n. branch above legislative the executive and Cf. 388, 397-98, Agents, Named 91 branches, a today decision in favor of the 1999, 2005, (1971) (rul 29 L.Ed.2d 619 S.Ct. defendant would do no more than extend to reserved). ing immunity judiciary from civil dam- ages arising personnel out of certain Clerk, (D.C. deci- Browning In 789 F.2d 923 already enjoyed sions that Cir.1986), by the coor- the District of Circuit Columbia question in dinate branches. Separation-of-powers addressed the left unanswered Browning, Davis. are, In the former course, Official concerns component of of the Reporter of the United States House of relating personnel decisions brought Representatives civil-rights ac- actions of the legisla- federal executive and alleged tion in which she that her termi- (and might tive branches result in a more nation was motivated a racial animus. comprehensive immunity for those branch- court, holding Speech The es than that accorded the judiciary). By provided defendants, Debate Clause token, questions the same comity members the United States House of fedеralism are raised in federal suits Representatives, with absolute event, state officials. In decision, personnel for this stated: unifying that, rationale is if employee’s an determining The touchstone in whether intimately duties are related to the func- Speech or Debate Clause tioning particular process (whether attaches is whether the activities at issue executive, legislative, on either integral part were “an of the deliberative level), personnel federal or state then processes and communicative Con- [of regarding employee decisions are also gress],” activity leg- ... such that the part process. of the islative character. Personnel decisions integral part legislative are an We turn now to the facts of this Thus, process____ employee’s plaintiff alleges case. The that she was integral part legisla- duties are an discharged on the basis of her sex. The process, directly tive such that question usually deciding first addressed in assisting Congress members of in the judge may whether a invoke the defense of functions,” “discharge personnel of their judicial immunity acting is whether he was affecting correspond- decisions them аre Stump, “jurisdiction.” See within 435 ingly legislative judi- and shielded from U.S. at As S.Ct. 1104-05. noted scrutiny. cial earlier, self-defining this is not a term. (citations omitted). 789 F.2d at 928-29 disgruntled litigant, ques the case of a plaintiff’s court found that the duties were jurisdiction tion is whether the had directly ‍​‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‍functioning related to the “due Id.; subject dispute. over the matter of the legislative process,” so that the decision Dykes, 776 F.2d at 945-50. clear, It discharge legislative her nature nonetheless, judge may acting that a thus, and, immunized the Clause. Simi outside, jurisdiction within his as well as larly, the First Circuit held in Agromayer v. See, inside, Lopez e.g., the courtroom. (1st Cir.), Colberg, 738 F.2d 55 cert. Vanderwater, (7th —, dismissed, Cir.), defendant, (1984), that the President Representatives, Puerto Rico House case, plaintiff’s instant claim the legislative had absolute under however, directly litiga- did not arise out of challenging the common law an action court, question tion before the so the plaintiff his refusal to hire the to serve as a Burke, subject-matter jurisdiction makes little press officer. See also Hudson v. Still, (N.D.Ill.1985); sense. that does not foreclose the F.Supp. cf. case, 2000e(f); defense in this believe Clark Tarrant Coun U.S.C. because we (N.D.Tex.1985). ty, F.Supp. general the more concern articulated Bradley progeny idiosynсracies and its is whether the cannot be particu- of a acting judge judge, was within of his lar those of even human nature clear “authority.” It has been since the generally, application that warrant the that, judicial inception a doctrine’s Rather, in- the critical acting power, in a clear immu- is absence quiry person is whether affected from the nity spare will not him conse- judge’s relationship acts such a stands quences Bradley, of his acts. 80 U.S. See judicial system as would make immuni- Wall.) 352; (13 also Gregory, at see 500 ty light appropriate in ex- the concerns only aspect F.2d 59. This is the of the pressed janitor above. A is required not resembling anything doctrine that has a provide judge a advice with and informa- “good component. faith” In the case of concerning pending Thus, judi- tion cases. subject-matter jurisdiction litigants, defines protect cial not judge would specific scope general authority. of that an refuses to hire individual be a In the context of the dismissal of a staff janitor.9 member, it is our that the threshold Supreme developed The in Stump Court judge question is this: was the authorized two-part a test to determine a whether discharge plaintiff? The answer in judicial act was issue. Although at articu- yes. fact, is unqualified this case an brought by lated in an in- party action a law, alone judges under Illinois are autho- in litigation volved before the defendant juvenile-probation rized to dismiss officers. judge, this general test addresses the con- course, question, more difficult is defense, cerns behind the no there is plaintiff the dismissal of a whether why reason apply it should not in- “judicial Again, act.” is not this a self-de- First, stant case. was the one function fining term. much to say It is too Second, normally performed by judge? a things acts are those plaintiff dealing was the judge with only circular, Such a not do. definition is judicial capacity? U.S. unnecessary also results in an exten- S.Ct. at 1107. answer to the first doctrine, of the sion because it prong inquiry of the was adumbrated personnel shield a would ac- law, only judge above: under Illinois process. tions unrelated to the decisional thus, plaintiff; order the dismissal example An refusal to be the hire an “normally performed by function is janitor. individual to serve as a The rea- judge.” supporting judicial immunity sons are not prong The second case, troublesome. It properly implicated in such a even protected true though are judgе’s apprehension possi- “judges,” bility acting as admin- civil-damage arising action out of as However, saying istrators.10 janitor the refusal to hire a affect that some- thing act, opposed mood and distract him from the is an administrative tasks at as (and, therefore, one, rights simply hand affect the to a states the conclu- litigants him). above, As sion. by judges before noted Certain decisions made token, By nity inappropriate. the same should would be Walker v. Cf. damage challenging Jones, judge’s (D.C.Cir.), bar a action of, reporter example, —, a court dismissal relationship bailiff. The between a employee perhaps accurately an such most Stump Sparkman, 10. See n. "administrative," ¿a, characterized one un- 1107 n. 55 L.Ed.2d judge’s related exercise of discretion. (1978) (discussing Gregory Thompson, 500 reporter a court or bailiff Because is not as a (9th Cir.1974), Johnson, Lynch general required provide matter (6th Cir.1970)); 420 F.2d 818 see also Lowe regarding information and advice the substance (7th Cir.1985) (judi Letsinger, 772 F.2d court, litigation before the so that discord apply cial acts) does not to ministerial employee employer between the would not (10 Otto) (citing Virginia, parte Ex implicate institutional role within (1879)). 25 L.Ed. 676 system, the court the defense of absolute immu-

657 (9th Cir.1970) may (probation the courtroom be administra- 433 F.2d 318 outside offi setting and another. cer has immunity), tive one derivative cert. denied, overlap is a between the There substantial 29 two, (1971); Blackwell, the characterization cannot be and L.Ed.2d 685 F.Supp. 570 purposes reference (immunity probation officers); without at 478-79 made Grundel, Ill.App.3d Richardson v. 85 (1980) (im 40 Ill.Dec. 406 N.E.2d 575 provides often an answer. As State law munity probation officer under Illinois above, determine, suggested for ex- law); Dixon, see also Scott v. 720 F.2d However, “judge.” is in fact a ample, who (11th Cir.1983) 1542 (immunity of court conclusively determine state law while clerk), —, immunity, entitled to judge (1984); Briscoe v. La see, Campbell, F.Supp. 514 e.g., Clark v. hue, (7th Cir.1981) (im 663 F.2d 722 (W.D.Ark.1981), always it does not munity reporter), of court on other judge determine when a is entitled to im- affd grounds, may assign munity, because a state a task (1983); Norton, Dieu judge to a for reasons unrelated to safe- (7th Cir.1969) F.2d 761 (immunity of court guarding principled independent and deci- reporter).11 clerk and sion-making. The fact that the performed by functions assignment under Illinois law plaintiff probation as a officer were probation supervision over offi- inextricably discretionary tied to decisions is, believe, directly related to the cers we consistently judi- that have been considered underlying defense of immu- principles cial acts is the fundamental factor to con- that, nity. question There is no her deciding sider whether the defendant officer, probation plaintiff capacity as a acting judicial capacity was when he dealing the defendant in the was lat- plaintiff. demoted and terminated the See capacity judge. as a She was render- ter’s 713; Lewis, F.Supp. Marajino, ing dispo- advice and recommendations for 206; Pruitt, F.Supp. F.Supp. 764. We judge, and the sitions to be made stress, however, that the nature of this provided directly implicat- information she relationship depends on the facts of each judge’s discretionary ed the exercise of the rule, general case. We cannot set forth a Abbott, 1101; judgment. See judge because the interaction between the Pruitt, F.Supp. regard- 764. Decisions and the members of staff does not ing, example, sentencing, probation, always appropriately implicate the deci- parole and the revocation of judge qua judge. sions of the See Good- acts, unquestionably judicial and the win, (relationship 729 F.2d at 548-49 be- plaintiff provided crucial adviсe and infor- hearing too tween officer distant making necessary mation those deci- decisions). implicate substance relationship by necessity Her sions. system differs in the manner in Each confidentiality. founded on confidence and responsibility it allocates to court position These attributes of the are the However, personnel. employ- because the primary reasons that officers relationship at issue here ment was domi- themselves have derivative absolute immu- unquestionably Nielsen, nated acts that were nity. Spaulding See (5th Cir.1979) judicial capacity taken in the defendant’s (probation im- meaning Bradley, Stump, alleged miscon- within mune from progeny, actions of investigation preparation duct in contested Callion, demoting dismissing pre-sentence report); the defendant in Burkes v. brought by employee suggest an who did not 11. This is not to that a would be action damage brought by immunity, every because the lack of immune in action have derivative employee employee enjoyed indicates that the former derivative immu- derivative However, discretionary nity working judge. decision- while it is was removed from the making process. unlikely be immune in an that a рlaintiff ability would affect his to act fashion system “justice for all” we independent in principled manner in guarantee justice cannot for each. The his if he judge role as a could not under- meritorious claims of some who are ad- protection take those actions without the of versely affected by improper judicial deci- conclude, therefore, the defense. We swept sions are aside with the meritless he is entitled to absolute from ones. The thereby tribute exacted is a civil in this case. consequence having judged human acts following: The human actors. evil be avoided is A judge probation loses confidence in his offi- defense, however, pro will not cer, him but hesitates to fire because of the judge tect a intemperate acts in litigation. threat of He then retains the every Only instance. when his conduct officer, parties appearing in which case the occurs in a context which prop even the victims, before the court are the because erly judge motivated would be reluctant to quality judge’s decision-making of the protection act without from civil-damage case, will decline. this four of the five actiоn and when that reluctance would un in Bradley directly factors discussed are integrity dermine the general pro implicated. First, will not be cess of administration is able to act on his convictions in deciding appropriate. This is such a case. cases, because he will not have the aid of a probation summarize, officer in he whom has trust and To we hold that the defend- Second, confidence. he will be driven to ant’s decisions to demote and dismiss the self-protective Third, wasteful devices. al- plaintiff performed were acts with- safeguards, impeach- ternative such as authority. then, He is ment, censure, equitable and declaratory case, under the facts of this entitled to the relief, forces, and market reduce the need defense of immunity. We, of private damage for a Finally, action. course, express no on other deci- alleging ease of bad faith in the demotion relating Judge sions White’s staff or good-faith dismissal renders even to officers in a different virtually judge may worthless. The also be system, because it must be deter- open to litigants suits from who discover mined in each case of immu- professional that his relationship with his nity policies advanсes the behind it. We declined, has and he have, must, as we addressed the facts expose charges thus himself impro- of the case before us. priety respect and lose the necessary for discharge responsibili- effective of his Ill ties. above, For the reasons judg- stated say One could conscientious ment of the district court is Affirmed. would act on his convictions and discharge employee, argument but this is an POSNER, Judge, dissenting. Circuit against immunity entirety. in its The de- Section 1 of Rights the Civil Act of 1871 general recognition that, fense reflects a (now 1983) 42 U.S.C. creates a federal bench, his elevation to the can- remedy against tort persons who violate always rise above frailties he rights federal under color of state law. shares with those individuals the propriety The statute does not mention of whose conduct upon he is now called liability, just defenses to judge. similarly If litigants situated were (as obvious) anyway shows always that the stat- similarly judged, perfect procedural ute was not justice This, however, complete intended to would obtain. be code is not Procedures, remedies, liability. of tort world which we find de- ourselves. Doc- judicial immunity grafted on; trines such as fenses have to be аre needed whether one promote process effective calls the completing administration of the statute legal system, our in attempting interpretation, elaboration, or common law Wade, 461 fired for an unconstitutional (see Smith reason for policymaking 30, 93,103 1625,1659, 75 L.Ed.2d provided Title VII or other statutes which J., (1983) (O’Connor, dissenting)), the employing remedy against agency. no integrate the stat- objective is the same—to problem points deeper is that both system liability and remedies ute into a range of applicable to a wide official con- regard paid to all relevant due protected held not to duct that been considerations, including impact lia- by immunity: police chief’s deci- pub- of essential bility performance lieutenant, police example. sion to fire a lic functions. reasoning majority Indeed the Today my hold that a state brethren opinion every consequential extends to em- pay never made to judge can be ployment by every government decision of- firing officer in violation of probation a logically ficial. The cannot be con- rights; the officer’s constitutional firing, although carefully fined to it avoids My immunity is absolute. brethren judge’s failing refusing to any reference to or hire. exposed to the emphasize judge that a Hiring unqualified person an because being damages may hes- sued for threat might fear that one otherwise be sued for incompetent probation offi- itate to fire an firing discrimination is no different from cer, public suffer from his and that the will unqualified person an because of the same of a hesitation. Most members fear. It would be a curious notion that a (this is true of for a short time staff serve judge probation must hire officers without clerks), perform not essential most law do regard to their race or sex but is free to services, discretionary authority. lack on the basis their race fire them or sex. harm generality of cases the to So majority opinion logically The cannot be public judge if a is inhibited fear of hiring firing proba- confined being firing incompetent an sued from judicial quasi-judi- or other tion officers great enough clearly ‍​‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‍staff member is not Incompetent personnel, cial either. em- justify giving immunity him absolute government ployees of other branches of probation from But in the case of suit. just judicial can do as much besides quasi-judicial officers аnd other public; it does not harm to the follow by judges— employees who are selected probation officer can said that a be because (in magistrates system) such as the federal acts, quasi-judicial firing perform that bankruptcy judges harm to the —the act, if done officer is a even it is public unqual- if a led retain an is Finally, emphasis my judge. employee by being ified fear of sued could place on the nature of brethren confidential very serious. be proba- relationship between is, point justi- Forceful as does only if the tion officer would be relevant fy giving judges immunity from absolute charged having fired the judge were with liability firing probation officer See, political grounds. officer on Constitution, even when the violation County, Burnett Soderbeck v. e.g., my point is combined another that with (7th Cir.1985). then it Even adminis- but hint at. There are brethren See, might very well not be determinative. remedies, particularly trative Finkel, Branti v. e.g., 445 U.S. Rights Act of under Title VII of the Civil (1980)(assistant 1287, 63 L.Ed.2d 574 public as amended in 1972 to cover defender). public 2000e(a), (b), employers, see 42 U.S.C. §§ subject- society prides itself on 2000e-2(a), employment for some forms of highest to the re- ing even its officials employers, discrimination such so that Ecоno- (see, e.g., Butz v. of law straints granting immunity absolute state mou, 478, 506, for such discrimination would not leave (1978)), position historically remedy. completely victims without universal, grant and still far from novel point incomplete; second is liability— from civil remedy no he were of absolute would have say, liability is to immunity, such rationale absolute is the need wrongdoing even for protect deliberate being seriously officials from —must confined to situations where such performance deflected from the effective merely convenient but essential. Id. duties. Absolute deciding at 2911. And in medicine, strong justified only when the demanding whether this test has met been danger very of such great. deflection judges must federal be sensitive the Analysis requires thus attention careful arbitrarily exempting accusation of them a judgment the tradeoffs involved in im selves from liabilities which have impos- A lawsuit posed in the name of the Constitution defendant, prevailing es costs even officials, state and federal. generally who cannot recover his attor- present case concerns state fees; ney’s in addition some defendants logic ap sued under section but its ought to win their suits lose them plies equal with force to federal simрly judicial system because the like directly sued under the Constitution. It most other human institutions makes mis- engenders tension thus v. Pass Davis every takes. So has an individual incentive man, get sued; conduct to avoid that will him (1979). Supreme L.Ed.2d 846 Court but the conduct he avoids be conduct that Congressman held that case could promotes society, the welfare of and if be sued for directly under the socially so the incentive will costly have firing deputy Constitution for adminis consequences. These have to costs be bal- trative assistant because she woman. was a against letting anced those wrongdoers of Although the immu Court reserved certain get Ordinarily off scot-free. the latter nity questions, it said petitioner that “if is thought greater (1) not costs are but merits, prevail to on the able she should be potential job nature defendant’s injury able to redress her in damages.” Id. expected is that he can be to such be sued 248, at thing 2278. The same (2) constantly, most such suits will be friv- can said about officer fired olous, (3) the can defendant reduce the by judge. It is true that the District of probability being by taking of sued mea- recently Columbia held Circuit suit, exposure (4) sures to avoid those “speech Constitution’s and debate clause” are, however, socially costly measures be- (Art. I, 6) immunizes of members Con cause of the nature of the defendant’s gress liability in damages firing from for work, (5) wrongdoing victims of an employee integral “duties whose are an remedies. have other part process.” of legislative Browning Clerk, 923, (D.C.Cir.1986). These conditions coalesce the case of a correct, holding But even if this judicial rulings, prose- sued correct in of an explicit virtue constitution prosecute, cutor for decisions whether provision al counterpart that has no so far legislator legislation judges, —and concerned; judges are are not we prosecutors, legislators, and officials repair oversights authorized capacities though acting in these not called Constitution’s framers. (including judges, ju- such ad hoc such as rors), (apart are from the President of the my recognize, purpose As brethren States) principal United officials who of absolute not to make life enjoy immunity from federal civil easy absolute govern- of officials branch of See, Saxner, ment; liability. e.g., Cleavinger judicial peace it is not foster of — 500, —, mind. U.S. L.Ed.2d vocationally We must allow our (1985); sharpened sensitivity Forsyth, Mitchell U.S. of difficulties —, performing judicial duties in conten- (1985); Supreme

tious era Virginia to influence us to immunize our- Court 731-36, judges Union, selves and legal from the haz- Consumers ards of 1974-77, office. The tenable (1980). absolutely running grave litigation are immune risks Witnesses reasons. The immuni having for similar absolute would run without im- liability from civil for their ty munity liability rulings. for their rulings principle has an established been great And because exercise discre- Anglo-American jurisprudence for hun (despite pious tion insistence that ours See, years. e.g., Bradley v. dreds of Fish men), government is a laws er, (13 Wall.) 335, 347-54, 20 L.Ed. timidity prove is hard to and even harder to (1872), there; Note, cases cited punish. Many judges, including all federal Delineating the Pulliam v. Allen: Immu judges, beyond power of effective Judges Prospective Relief, From nity political correction branches (1985). It 34 Cath. U.L.Rev. government pull and thus can applicable to suits under section was held punches Finally, to their hearts’ content. Ray, 554- 1983 Pierson v. wrongful judicial ruling the victim of a 1213, 1218, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 ordinarily remedy by way appeal nothing history But there is in this higher to a court. suggest judicial immunity extends granting judges The case for beyond judicial rulings. judicial rulings for their is thus a The business of a is to rule one, powerful one not easily transposed loser, people. Every cоntested case has a judges’ staffing decisions on their cham- litigious often a sore one. And the class of compact bers. Consider the statement of people overrepresented is of course in liti- judicial immunity the rationale for absolute meaning gation, that the loser of a lawsuit Ray, supra: Pierson v. “It is a (if permitted) likely is more to vent his duty jurisdic- to decide all cases within his anger by bringing another lawsuit than him, brought including tion that are before nonlegal average would loser of a be controversial cases that arouse most A of this court votes in contest. feelings litigants. intense in the His errors year, every a and more than cases may appeal, be corrected on but he should (nondissenting) produces a loser. A vote litigants not have to fear that unsatisfied significant of the losers sue fraction may litigation charging hound him with (some judges they if could do so sue us corruption. Imposing malice or such a bur- despite immunity). The vast our absolute prin- judges den on would contribute not to frivolous, majority of such suits would be cipled decision-making and fearless but to for would be efforts to attack a final intimidation.” 386 U.S. at 87 S.Ct. at attacking judgment collaterally by Notice how the entire discussion is judge, a mode of collateral attack that geared making judi- to in role judges if would not be tolerated even were cial decisions. If there is a case for abso- being completely immune from sued liability lute from civil judicial rulings. for their decisions, judges’ employment it is a com- costly Nevertheless these suits would be in pletely different case from the traditional aggregate and could lead to measures today one. The decision breaks new people of avoidance of various sorts. Some ground; novelty always is not a and virtue judges, though to would decline become in law. qualified. pull well Others would traditionally Absolute con- litigants in one of punches cases where (I doctrine, judge-made mean the ceived particularly seemed irate or contentious. legisla- that federal involving try to duck cases Others would speech enjoy by tors virtue of the and litigants. For none of these tech- such I) in Article is limited to the debate clause effec- niques of avoidance would there be position re- situation where an official’s People are scared of tive remedies. constantly hurting mem- quires that he be being cannot forced to serve as sued be public if he is not judges. taxpayers Nor raise bers will —so target high compensate judges immune he will a constant enough salaries to be litigation where in attorneys), addition massive district unless he is indemnified —and litigation or to distort likely its threat his by employer which event the suit is —in behavior, to the detriment official serious unlikely have impact per- to much on his public. the position This describes formance of his duties. The threat of suit rendering judicial decisions to likely performance less affect the prosecutors prosecuting. and But no his for another duties reason he as well: one thinks that a state or federal district has less than judge prosecu- discretion or attorney absolutely should be immune from tor. He is also more discipline amenable to liability discriminating hiring in the or superiors and control if he seems firing attorneys; of assistant district flagging. Finally, be policemen unless can why should there be a different rule for using be sued for excessive force or for hiring firing who discriminate in arrest, many false victims of these excess- attorney their subordinates? A district any es will without remedy. be In con- responsible initiating may be hundreds trast, judicial decisions subject ap- are prosecutiоns or even thousands of peal prosecutorial subject decisions are year, every course one would be a by grand juries, petit correction juries, potential against it lawsuit him if were not judges, appellate trial judges. enjoy for absolute Prosecutors Granted, public employee who has been broad, essentially discretion unreviewable fired have alternative remedies to deciding prosecute, whom to while damages, suit for a fact might seem discretion, judges enjoy a broad too—dis- him more like make the loser of a lawsuit plausibly cretion decide cases for either police than like the victim of A brutality. party. (all Many judges judges) federal grounds officer fired on of race protected addition from removal right appeal or sex has no but have does government. other branches of If ei- administrative remedies type ther of official is made timid fear employing agency (i.e., being performance sued and his suffers judge). than the rather These reme- result, wiser; as a will not be limited, dies are most importantly in allow- is, even it able not be to do ing only equitable employ- relief: the fired anything whip the official into back line. get ee can reinstatement pay with back prosecutor likely But more is no get damages. cannot common law But sued for employment discrimination get loser of a cannot lawsuit common law employer, public private. than either; only get he can a reversal Forsyth, supra, Cf. Mitchell v. 105 S.Ct. at event, appeal. any the im- absolute 2813. He does not face an avalanche of munity judges cannot be depend made to denied; if immunity lawsuits absolute is legislature on the accident that a cre- has are, employment decisions not ated an remedy, alternative for it not is evaluations, fully subject to outside less distinguishes something that judge a prosecutorial adjudica- inscrutable than any public employer. decisions, tive or at least no more inscruta- than employment ble the of other decisions If I did not have for immunity absolute officials. my judicial rulings I in enveloped would be litigation a my cloud of that estate would potential expo- is true so It far as defending long still be my after death. by to suit sure members of the is concerned, thought But I have never I had absolute policeman in is much same employment decisions, immunity for position judge prosecutor yet enjoys as a or includ- ing bankruptcy in immunity damage no absolute decisions from civil participate There which I as a actions. for differ- member of reasons One, Judges in treatment. is Seventh Judicial merely ence which Circuit’s Council. realistic, rarely policeman immunity is that a do not need such an to order (of suing perform assets to effectively. sufficient be worth their duties Without many this is course also true of assistant it there be some our diminution in enough justify 53 Fordham L.Rev. 1503 As the not to ab- but effectiveness right if I that it can Gregory Thomp- am be Ninth Circuit said in solute consistently our traditions son, (9th Cir.1974), granted F.2d where compel- the circumstances are defendant, judge, forcibly had ex- need not fear ling. evidence that we Some judge’s pelled plaintiff from the court- if the district court’s of lawsuits a flood room, “Judge Thompson’s per- choice to appears to is affirmed decision normally per- form an act similar to that judge’s abso- the first case which a be by a sheriff or bailiff should not formed damage liability immunity from lute receiving result in his absolute has even been employment discrimination simply judge act he for this because was a level; it argued appellate the federal alsо at the time.” See Ammons v. Bald- argued Goodwin v. Circuit was win, 1445,1448 Cir.1983). (5th F.2d Or 729 F.2d County, Louis Court St. Letsinger, as we said both Lowe v. Cir.1984), Eighth (8th 545-46 where (7th Cir.1985), and Glick upheld damage judgment recently Circuit Gutbrod, (7th Cir.1986) removing a hear- judge a state curiam), “The (per doctrine absolute [of That ing of her sex. case officer because claims, immunity] applies damage to ... differently if a might decided have been but not ministerial administrative having fired litigant judge sued the had acts.” officer, hearing for in relation to liti- I realize that the line between the gants employment decisions fast; and the administrative not hard and the sort of act rulings that a makes in the attaches; in relation absolute “administering” system course of a school job employ- employee applicant, prison system under a consent decree discrimination does ment immunity. doctrine of are entitled absolute Hollo- engage policy behind the Walker, supra, 765 F.2d at 525. I way absolute recognize the hint—no more—in Richard- distinguish carefully The failure to Koshiba, supra, 693 F.2d at 914 n. son v. among different kinds of acts that 10, that the classification of the act is de- is, indeed, the fatal weak judges perform termined the office of the actor rather opinion. to its majority in the Carried ness I than the nature of the act. realize extreme, attach logical factually I have cited are not the cases major decision one, present except similar one— of his made within Supreme it is a decision of the but as proper question powers. lawful one, Court, though pay should an old we in the the decision was made whether attention to it. In Ex Parte particular Vir- Judges judicial capacity. have both Otto) 339, (10 L.Ed. ginia, Hiring functions. judicial and executive (1880), indicted for county judge func firing are executive subordinates selecting jurors racial discrimination distinction is well estab tions. The basic county’s in the courts. To the serve Spark Stump v. lished in the cases. See argument he immune was 1099,1107, 349,362, man, prosecution the answer- from such a Court (1978); Lopez v. Vanderwa 55 L.Ed.2d case, applicable present ed in words Cir.1980); (7th ter, 620 F.2d 1233-35 judicial him the act done was “Whether Deveaux, 780 F.2d 914-16 Harris character, determined its or not is be Cir.1986); Hosemann, (11th Dykes agent. by the character of the and not Cir.1985) (en banc) (11th (per county judge he or not is of Whether was Walker, curiam); 765 F.2d Holloway v. selecting ju- importance. duty The of no (5th Cir.1985); 522-25 Richardson (9th might as well have been committed rors Koshiba, Cir. holding the person as to one private 1982); Note, Constitutes Judicial What jurors judge____ That the are office of a Immunity?, Purposes Judicial Act of for a makes no ties may selected court difference. a reason for leaving be courtcriers, sheriffs, etc.,” tipstaves, are So port in place. the first The absolute immu- probation id. 348—and officers. This nity judge’s legal rulings for a is about of prose- said in the a criminal context legal definite a rule as we have in our surprising but it if cution would a suit system, and the absolute brought prospec- civil today indefinite, is creates about as jurors had tive whom the discrimi- which principle robs the of its value to against have nated would been deemed judges public. and to the Absolute immu- by the absolute barred doctrine immuni- nity provides security only scope real if the ty- well defined. Under My give judges pro- brethren more approach process court’s of definition than officials not tection because of protracted may will be yield never they distinctively the acts that do which are clear employees job appli- rule on which (for firing I judicial contend a subor- cants sue and which dinate, subordinate, even a is not a not, and for what. We shall still have to act) distinсtively judicial just but because buy liability insurance. judges. racial The same or sexual age firing probation discrimination in to be immunized civil liabili- ty person doing firing if the judge, is a person is not to be immunized the officer, probation

another or some other officer,

executive or a administra-

tor, or in anyone short does not him- perform though self course not in the America, UNITED STATES hiring firing act function. —a Plaintiff-Appellee, I think my wrong So brethren are

grant Judge immunity, White absolute Cynthia King, David judgment I would GOUDY reverse the the dis- Defendants-Appellants. think pro- trict court. But I also that the the majority opin- tection suit that 85-1646, Nos. 85-1647. illusory. majority ion creates is is so Appeals, United States ‍​‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‍Court of writing opinion intent on a narrow that it leaves the of its new Seventh Circuit. doctrine of immunity entirely absolute uncertain. Can Argued Nov. 1985. really be that the doctrine is to be limited Decided June firing officers in Illinois logic juvenile courts? The swath,

cuts much broader be) (perhaps

cannot be should not forced to

apply principles logical full reach. majority “a calls for critical evaluation underlying concerns the defense” of case; in each it declines express any “opinion on other decisions

relating Judge White’s staff or even to sys- officers a different court

tem, because it must be determined in each

case that the advances policies right It behind it.” to be cautious when set sail on seas,

uncharted in the field of immuni-

Case Details

Case Name: Cynthia A. Forrester v. Judge Howard Lee White

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Date Published: Jun 5, 1986

Citation: 792 F.2d 647

Docket Number: 84-1823

Court Abbreviation: 7th Cir.