Stump et al. v. Sparkman et vir.
435 U.S. 349 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A judge is absolutely immune from damages liability for their judicial acts, even if those acts are erroneous, malicious, or in excess of their authority. This immunity is lost only when a judge acts in the 'clear absence of all jurisdiction' or when the act performed is not a 'judicial act.'
Facts:
- Ora Spitler McFarlin was the mother of 15-year-old Linda Kay Spitler.
- McFarlin's petition to Judge Harold D. Stump stated that her daughter was 'somewhat retarded' and had been staying out overnight with young men.
- McFarlin petitioned Judge Stump of the Circuit Court of DeKalb County, Indiana, for an order permitting a tubal ligation to be performed on her daughter to 'prevent unfortunate circumstances.'
- On the same day the petition was presented, Judge Stump approved it by signing the order in his capacity as 'Judge, DeKalb Circuit Court.'
- No hearing was held, no notice was given to Linda Spitler, and no guardian ad litem was appointed to represent her interests.
- Linda was told she was going to the hospital for an appendectomy but was instead subjected to a tubal ligation, rendering her sterile.
- Two years later, after marrying, Linda Sparkman discovered she had been sterilized when she was unable to conceive a child.
Procedural Posture:
- Linda Sparkman and her husband filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana against Judge Stump and others, seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of constitutional rights.
- The District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that Judge Stump, the only state actor, was entitled to absolute judicial immunity.
- The Sparkmans, as appellants, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision, finding that Judge Stump had acted outside his jurisdiction and was therefore not immune from suit.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state court judge of general jurisdiction who approves a parent's ex parte petition to have their minor child sterilized have absolute judicial immunity from a damages lawsuit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
Yes. A judge is absolutely immune from damages for judicial acts unless they are performed in the 'clear absence of all jurisdiction.' Judge Stump's approval of the sterilization petition was not an act taken in the clear absence of jurisdiction, and it constituted a 'judicial act.' The Indiana Circuit Court is a court of general jurisdiction with broad authority, and no statute or case law explicitly forbade it from considering such a petition. Although the approval may have been a grave error and procedurally flawed, acting in 'excess of jurisdiction' does not strip a judge of immunity. The action was a 'judicial act' because approving petitions relating to the affairs of minors is a function normally performed by a judge, and the parties dealt with Judge Stump in his judicial capacity. The informality of the proceeding does not convert a judicial act into a non-judicial one.
Dissenting - Justice Stewart
No. The approval of the sterilization petition was not a 'judicial act' and therefore is not protected by judicial immunity. A 'judicial act' must be a function normally performed by a judge, but parents in Indiana do not normally need judicial approval for their child's medical treatment, and the state's specific sterilization statutes involved administrative, not judicial, proceedings. Furthermore, the act lacked any of the normal attributes of a judicial proceeding: there was no case, no litigants, no opportunity for appeal, and no principled decision-making. Simply being a judge and signing a document as a judge does not transform a private, lawless act into a protected judicial one.
Dissenting - Justice Powell
No. Judge Stump is not entitled to judicial immunity because his actions precluded any possibility for the vindication of the respondent's rights through the judicial system. The underlying principle of judicial immunity is that while it may harm individuals, the legal system provides alternative remedies like appeals to correct errors. By acting secretly and without creating a formal record, Judge Stump ensured there could be no appeal. Where a judge's conduct forecloses all resort to judicial remedies, the core assumption justifying absolute immunity is absent.
Analysis:
This decision dramatically broadened the scope of absolute judicial immunity, establishing that even egregious procedural errors and morally questionable decisions do not strip a judge of immunity so long as there is a plausible basis for jurisdiction. The two-part test for a 'judicial act'—focusing on the function's nature and the parties' expectations—de-emphasizes procedural formalities, making it very difficult to hold judges liable for damages. The ruling prioritizes judicial independence over remedies for individuals harmed by judicial misconduct, setting a high bar for plaintiffs seeking to overcome the immunity doctrine.
Unlock the full brief for Stump et al. v. Sparkman et vir.