Pulliam v. Allen (1983)
- Docket
- 82-1432
- Decided
- 1983-01-01
Summary
Question: Does judicial immunity protect a member of the judiciary acting in her official capacity from paying attorneys’ fees in a civil suit? Conclusion: No. Justice Harry A. Blackmun delivered the opinion of the 5-4 majority. The Court held that the precedent set by British common law relied on the issuance of writs, rather than the imposition of judicial immunity, to protect judicial independence. The United States never had a doctrine of judicial immunity from prospective relief, and there was no evidence that the lack of that protection created a chilling effect on judicial independence. The Court held that there was no reason to assume such immunity was necessary. There was no legislative history to indicate that Congress intended to insulate judges from injunctive relief. The Civil Rights Acts and their interpretations illustrate that Congress intended all state actors to be subject to such remedies to ensure the protection of Fourteenth Amendment rights. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. wrote a dissent where he argued that judicial immunity from all types of relief and damages in civil suits is essential to protect judicial independence. He wrote that the majority’s opinion misinterprets British common law, which does rely on judicial immunity to protect judges from suit arising from a judge acting in her official capacity. He argued that the potential for the awarding of attorneys’ fees greatly increases the risk of harassing litigation because attorneys will recommend such action to clients. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, Justice William H. Rehnquist, and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor joined in the dissent.