Bradley v. Fisher
80 U.S. 335, 20 L. Ed. 646 (1872)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Judges of courts of superior or general jurisdiction are absolutely immune from civil liability for judicial acts, even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction and are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly.
Facts:
- Joseph H. Bradley was an attorney representing defendant John H. Suratt in a murder trial.
- George P. Fisher was the justice presiding over the trial in the Criminal Court of the District of Columbia.
- During the trial, after the court recessed for the day, Bradley accosted Judge Fisher as he was descending from the bench.
- Bradley accused Judge Fisher of directing a series of insults at him from the bench throughout the trial.
- Judge Fisher denied any intent to insult Bradley and stated he held him in respect.
- Bradley rejected the explanation and threatened Judge Fisher with 'personal chastisement'.
- Immediately after the trial concluded and the jury was discharged, Judge Fisher issued an order from the bench striking Bradley's name from the roll of attorneys practicing in that specific Criminal Court.
Procedural Posture:
- Joseph H. Bradley filed a civil suit against Judge George P. Fisher seeking damages.
- Bradley's complaint alleged that Judge Fisher's order unlawfully removed him from the bar of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.
- Judge Fisher's defense argued that the order was a judicial act performed within his authority as a judge of a court of general jurisdiction, granting him immunity.
- At trial, the lower court excluded the disbarment order from evidence because it only applied to the Criminal Court, not the Supreme Court of the District as Bradley had alleged.
- The trial court found in favor of Judge Fisher.
- Bradley appealed the trial court's decision to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a judge of a court of superior or general jurisdiction civilly liable for damages for a judicial act done in excess of their jurisdiction, even when the act is alleged to have been performed maliciously or corruptly?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Field
No, a judge of a court of superior or general jurisdiction is not civilly liable for such acts. The principle of judicial immunity dictates that judges must be free to act upon their own convictions without fear of personal consequences. This immunity is not affected by the motives with which judicial acts are performed, as allowing inquiry into malice or corruption would subject judges to constant vexatious litigation by losing parties and undermine judicial independence. The court distinguished between acts in 'excess of jurisdiction,' for which immunity applies, and acts in the 'clear absence of all jurisdiction,' for which it does not. Here, the Criminal Court had general jurisdiction over the attorneys practicing before it; while the judge may have exercised this power erroneously by not providing notice or a hearing, the act of disbarment was not undertaken in the complete absence of jurisdiction. The proper remedy for a malicious or corrupt judge is public prosecution, such as impeachment, not a private civil suit.
Dissenting - Justice Davis
Yes, a judge should be liable in such a case. While judges are exempt from liability for judicial acts within their jurisdiction, this protection should not extend to acts that are both in excess of jurisdiction and performed maliciously or corruptly. If a judge acts with malice and corruption while exceeding his authority, he should be subject to a civil suit in the same manner as a private individual under similar circumstances.
Analysis:
This case establishes the bedrock principle of absolute judicial immunity for judges of superior courts in the United States. It creates a crucial and lasting distinction between acts done in 'excess of jurisdiction' (immune) and acts done in a 'clear absence of all jurisdiction' (not immune). By shielding judges from civil liability even for malicious acts, the decision prioritizes the independence of the judiciary over individual remedies for alleged wrongs by a judge. This framework makes it exceedingly difficult to hold judges personally accountable for their judicial conduct through civil lawsuits, channeling remedies for misconduct toward political processes like impeachment.
Unlock the full brief for Bradley v. Fisher