Gale Encyclopedia of American Law Volume 6 P9 fully illuminates today's leading cases, major statutes, legal terms and concepts, notable persons involved with the law, important documents and more. Legal issues are fully discussed in easy-to-understand language, including such high-profile topics as the Americans with Disabilities Act, capital punishment, domestic violence, gay and lesbian rights, physician-assisted suicide and thousands more. | 68 JUDICIAL IMMUNITY SHOULD JUDGES HAVE ABSOLUTE OR QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The . Supreme Court has made clear that when judges perform judicial acts within their jurisdiction they are absolutely immune from money damages lawsuits. When judges act outside their judicial function such as in supervising their employees they do not have absolute immunity. The Court s upholding of absolute immunity has troubled some legal commentators who believe that in appropriate circumstances judges should be held personally accountable for judicial actions that are unlawful. Defenders of absolute immunity claim that it is required for the benefit of the public not for the protection of malicious or corrupt judges. The legitimacy of . courts rests on the public s belief that judges have the freedom to act independently without fear of the consequences. Absolute immunity provides the buffer needed for a judge to act. in the adversarial process one party wins and the other party loses. Losing parties are inevitably disappointed and some seek ways of venting their frustration at the legal system. Some file complaints with lawyer discipline boards alleging ethical misconduct by the opposing party s attorney or their own attorney. Some file complaints with a judicial conduct board claiming that the trial judge violated a canon of judicial conduct. Though these types of complaints do not result in the relitigation of a lawsuit they do illustrate the vexatious litigation that faces attorneys and judges. Allowing parties to sue a judge for a judicial act would invite a torrent of meritless suits that would impede the judicial system. Defenders of absolute immunity note that a flood of litigation would not be the only consequence of relaxing the immunity standard. They say that once judges became liable for damages suits self-interest would lead them to avoid making decisions likely to provoke such suits. The resulting overcautiousness and timidity might be hard to detect but it would .
