Stump v. Sparkman 435 U.S. 349 (1978)
STUMP v. SPARKMAN 435 U.S. 349 (1978)
This decision confirmed judges' absolute immunity from damage suits for alleged constitutional violations. At the request of a mother who was displeased with her "somewhat retarded" fifteen-year-old daughter's behavior, and in ex parte proceeding in which the child was not represented, Judge Stump ordered the child to be sterilized. The girl was told she was having an appendectomy, and she discovered some years later she had been sterilized. In an action brought by the sterilization victim and her husband, the Supreme Court held, 5–3, that the judge was immune from liability. Because signing the sterilization order was a judicial act, and because there was no express statement in state law that judges lacked jurisdiction to entertain sterilization requests, the judge's behavior was covered by the doctrine of judicial immunity. In the name of judicial independence, the majority immunized conduct that the three dissenters aptly called "lawless," "beyond the pale of anything that could sensibly be called a judicial act."
Theodore Eisenberg
(1986)