Dennis v. Sparks

Last updated

Dennis v. Sparks
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 8, 1980
Decided November 17, 1980
Full case nameDennis v. Sparks ET AL., DBA Sidney A. Sparks, Trustee
Citations449 U.S. 24 ( more )
101 S. Ct. 183; 66 L. Ed. 2d 185; 1980 U.S. LEXIS 9
Case history
PriorSparks v. Duval County Ranch Co., 604 F.2d 976 (5th Cir. 1979); cert. granted, 445 U.S. 942(1980).
Holding
The action against the private parties accused of conspiring with the judge is not subject to dismissal. Private persons, jointly engaged with state officials in a challenged action, are acting "under color" of law for purposes of 1983 actions. And the judge's immunity from damages liability for an official act that was allegedly the product of a corrupt conspiracy involving bribery of the judge does not change the character of his action or that of his co-conspirators. Historically at common law, judicial immunity does not insulate from damages liability those private persons who corruptly conspire with a judge. Nor has the doctrine of judicial immunity been considered historically as excusing a judge from responding as a witness when his co-conspirators are sued, even though a charge of conspiracy and judicial corruption will be aired and decided. Gravel v. United States [1] distinguished. The potential harm to the public from denying immunity to co-conspirators if the factfinder mistakenly upholds a charge of a corrupt conspiracy is outweighed by the benefits of providing a remedy [449 U.S. 24, 25] against those private persons who participate in subverting the judicial process and in so doing inflict injury on other persons. pp. 27–32.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Potter Stewart
Byron White  · Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun  · Lewis F. Powell Jr.
William Rehnquist  · John P. Stevens
Case opinion
MajorityWhite, joined by unanimous

Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24 (1980), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that individuals who bribed a judge for an injunction were not protected by judicial immunity and therefore could be held liable for the damages resulting from the injunction. [2]

Contents

The case

In January 1973, a judge of the 229th District Court of Duval County, Tex., enjoined the production of minerals from certain oil leases owned by respondents. In June 1975, the injunction was dissolved by an appellate court as having been illegally issued. Respondents then filed a complaint in the United States District Court purporting to state a cause of action for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [3] Defendants were the Duval County Ranch Co., Inc., which had obtained the injunction, the sole owner of the corporation, the judge who entered the injunction, and the two individual sureties on the injunction bond, one of whom is now petitioner in this Court. Essentially, the claim was that the injunction had been corruptly issued as the result of a conspiracy between the judge and the other defendants, thus causing a deprivation of property, i.e., two years of oil production, without due process of law.

All defendants moved to dismiss, the judge asserting judicial immunity and the other defendants urging dismissal for failure to allege action "under color" of state law, a necessary component of a § 1983 cause of action. The District Court concluded that, because the injunction was a judicial act within the jurisdiction of the state court, the judge was immune from liability in a § 1983 suit, whether or not the injunction had issued as the result of a corrupt conspiracy. Relying on Haldane v. Chagnon, [4] the District Court also ruled that, with the dismissal of the judge, the remaining defendants could not be said to have conspired under color of state law within the meaning of § 1983. The action against them was accordingly dismissed "for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."

In a per curiam opinion, a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that the judge was immune from suit and that, because "the remaining defendants, who are all private citizens, did not conspire with any person against whom a valid § 1983 suit can be stated," [5] existing authorities in the Circuit required dismissal of the claims against these defendants as well. The case was reconsidered en banc, prior Circuit authority was overruled and the District Court judgment was reversed insofar as it had dismissed claims against the defendants other than the judge. [5] The court ruled that there was no good reason in law, logic, or policy for conferring immunity on private persons who persuaded the immune judge to exercise his jurisdiction corruptly. Because the judgment below was inconsistent with the rulings of other Courts of Appeals and involves an important issue, the Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari.

Trivia

Dennis v. Sparks was the first opinion of the Court since the early 19th century where members of the Court were not referred to as "Mr. Justice." In February 1979, Justice John Paul Stevens participated in a moot court at the University of Notre Dame. Joining him on the bench were two lower court judges, including Judge Cornelia G. Kennedy, then chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. As was custom, the arguing counsel addressed him as “Mr. Justice” Stevens. When participants addressed Judge Kennedy as “Madame Justice,” she replied, “Why do you address me as ‘Madame Justice?’ The word ‘Justice’ is not a sexist term.” Justice Stevens later discussed this with his all-male colleagues. Justice Potter Stewart observed that women would inevitably join them on the Court someday, and thus suggested that they drop “Mr.” from the title. On November 14, 1980, the Justices agreed by a vote of 8-1. The lone dissenter was Justice Harry A. Blackmun, who felt they should wait until a woman joined the Court so she could participate in the decision. [6] The following year, Sandra Day O'Connor became the first woman nominated and the first confirmed to the Court.

See also

Related Research Articles

<i>Stump v. Sparkman</i> 1978 U.S. Supreme Court case on judicial immunity

Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978), is the leading United States Supreme Court decision on judicial immunity. It involved an Indiana judge who was sued by a young woman who had been sterilized without her knowledge as a minor in accordance with the judge's order. The Supreme Court held that the judge was immune from being sued for issuing the order because it was issued as a judicial function. The case has been called one of the most controversial in recent Supreme Court history.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Edith Jones</span> American judge (born 1949)

Edith Hollan Jones is a United States circuit judge and the former chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

<i>Glassroth v. Moore</i>

Glassroth v. Moore, 335 F.3d 1282, and its companion case Maddox and Howard v. Moore, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1290, is a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit that held a 2+1⁄2 ton granite monument of the Ten Commandments placed in the rotunda of the Heflin-Torbert Judicial Building in Montgomery, Alabama by then-Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

<i>Muntaqim v. Coombe</i> American legal case

Muntaqim v. Coombe, 449 F.3d 371, was a legal challenge to New York State’s law disenfranchising individuals convicted of felonies while in prison and on parole. The plaintiff, Jalil Abdul Muntaqim who was serving a life sentence at the time, argued that the law had a disproportionate impact on African Americans and therefore violated Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act as a denial of the right to vote on account of race.

Judicial immunity is a form of sovereign immunity, which protects judges and others employed by the judiciary from liability resulting from their judicial actions. It is intended to ensure that judges can make decisions free from improper influence exercised on them, contributing to the impartiality of the judiciary and the rule of law. In modern times, the main purpose of "judicial immunity [is to shield] judges from the suits of ordinary people", primarily litigants who may be dissatisfied with the outcome of a case decided by the judge.

<i>Hepting v. AT&T</i>

Hepting v. AT&T, 439 F.Supp.2d 974, was a class action lawsuit argued before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, filed by Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) on behalf of customers of the telecommunications company AT&T. The plaintiffs alleged that AT&T permitted and assisted the National Security Agency (NSA) in unlawfully monitoring the personal communications of American citizens, including AT&T customers, whose communications were routed through AT&T's network.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Milan Smith</span> American judge (born 1942)

Milan Dale Smith, Jr. is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Smith's brother, Gordon H. Smith, was a Republican U.S. Senator from 1997 to 2009. Milan Smith is neither a Republican nor a Democrat, and he considers himself to be a political independent.

Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the pleading standard for retaliatory prosecution claims against government officials. After a successful lobbying attempt by the CEO of a manufacturing company against competing devices that the US Postal Service supported, the CEO found himself the target of an investigation by US postal inspectors and a criminal prosecution that was dismissed for lack of evidence. The CEO then filed suit against the inspectors and other government officials for seeking to prosecute him in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights to criticize postal policy. The Court ruled 5-2 that to prove that the prosecution was caused by a retaliatory motive, the plaintiff bringing such a claim must allege and prove that the criminal charges were brought without probable cause.

Dennis G. Jacobs is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">D. Brooks Smith</span> American judge (born 1951)

David Brookman "Brooks" Smith is a senior judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. He was previously Chief Judge of both the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, and is the only judge in the history of the Third Circuit to have served as both a chief district judge and chief of the Court of Appeals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jerry Edwin Smith</span> American judge

Jerry Edwin Smith is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal, Ruhal Ahmed, and Jamal Al-Harith, four former Guantánamo Bay detainees, filed suit in 2004 in the United States District Court in Washington, DC against former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. They charged that illegal interrogation tactics were permitted to be used against them by Secretary Rumsfeld and the military chain of command. The plaintiffs each sought seek compensatory damages for torture and arbitrary detention while being held at Guantánamo.

Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), is a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court determined, by a vote of 4–2, that non-U.S. citizens detained in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks cannot recover monetary damages from high level federal officials for the conditions of their confinement. The case was consolidated with Hastey v. Abbasi, and Ashcroft v. Abbasi. It was argued on January 18, 2017.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Consuelo Bland Marshall</span> American judge (born 1936)

Consuelo Bland Marshall is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (1988), was a case decided on by the United States Supreme Court. The case restricted judicial immunity in certain instances.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stephanos Bibas</span> American judge (born 1969)

Stephanos Bibas is an American lawyer and jurist who serves as a circuit judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Before his appointment to the bench, Bibas was a professor of law and criminology at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where he also served as director of its Supreme Court clinic.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Trump was a case brought before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs, watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), hotel and restaurant owner Eric Goode, an association of restaurants known as ROC United, and an Embassy Row hotel event booker named Jill Phaneuf alleged that the defendant, President Donald Trump, was in violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause, a constitutional provision that bars the president or any other federal official from taking gifts or payments from foreign governments. CREW filed its complaint on January 23, 2017, shortly after Trump was inaugurated as president. An amended complaint, adding the hotel and restaurant industry plaintiffs, was filed on April 18, 2017. A second amended complaint was filed on May 10, 2017. CREW was represented by several prominent lawyers and legal scholars in the case.

In United States law, a nationwide injunction is injunctive relief in which a court binds the federal government even in its relations with nonparties. In their prototypical form, nationwide injunctions are used to restrict the federal government from enforcing a statute or regulation.

Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court first introduced the justification for qualified immunity for police officers from being sued for civil rights violations under Section 1983, by arguing that "[a] policeman's lot is not so unhappy that he must choose between being charged with dereliction of duty if he does not arrest when he had probable cause, and being mulcted in damages if he does."

Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, 595 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case brought by Texas abortion providers and abortion rights advocates that challenged the constitutionality of the Texas Heartbeat Act, a law that outlaws abortions after six weeks. The Texas Heartbeat Act prohibits state officials from enforcing the ban but authorizes private individuals to enforce the law by suing anyone who performs, aids, or abets an abortion after six weeks. The law was structured this way to evade pre-enforcement judicial review because lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of state statutes are typically brought against state officials who are charged with enforcing the law, as the state itself cannot be sued under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

References

  1. ↑ Gravel v. United States , 408 U.S. 606 (1972).
  2. ↑ Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24 (1980). PD-icon.svg This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
  3. ↑ 42 U.S.C.   § 1983.
  4. ↑ Haldane v. Chagnon, 345F.2d601 (9th Cir.1965).
  5. 1 2 Sparks v. Duval County Ranch Co., 604F.2d976 (5th Cir.1979).
  6. ↑ "Home - Supreme Court of the United States". November 15, 2022. Archived from the original on November 15, 2022. Retrieved November 18, 2022.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.