Judging the Judges: Holding Judges Accountable
Edited by Jaden Shir
In May of 2025, a man named Daniel Spencer allegedly murdered his 5-year-old stepdaughter, Missy Mogle, in Tallahassee, Florida, while he was out on bond awaiting sentencing after being convicted of traveling to meet a minor. Leon County Circuit Judge Baker-Carper had previously denied the local state attorney’s request to revoke his bond (“Attorney General James Uthmeier”). A few years earlier, in 2021, a woman named Precious Bland drowned her 15-month-old daughter and stabbed her husband and older daughter (Jones). In June 2026, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Miguel M. de la O found Bland not guilty by reason of insanity. Both cases drew attention to judges’ authority and the systems in place for when their decisions are questioned. The two judges faced criticism from Florida’s Governor Ron DeSantis and Attorney General James Uthmeier as they debated how much discretion should be available to judges. Despite these efforts to hold judges ‘accountable,’ former Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, Daniel Perez, acknowledges that judges will remain protected by judicial immunity.
The History of Judicial Immunity
Judicial immunity is a concept dating back to 1600s English common law. In the 1607 case Floyd v. Barker, Judge Sir Edward Coke established the principle that judges’ official actions could not be held against them. He did this for a few reasons: it allowed judges to make appropriate, objective decisions without fear of repercussions; it maintained the authority, reputation, and independence of the judicial branch; and it allowed for conclusive trials (Hodges 1045-46; Shaman 3). Later, in Randall v. Brigham (1868), U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field recognized that judges were protected from liability for acts committed within their jurisdiction, while leaving open the possibility of accountability for corruption or acting outside their jurisdiction (Bowe 114).
However, after Bradley v. Fisher in 1871, the use of qualified immunity significantly expanded protection given to judges and laid the foundation for absolute judicial immunity. Due to the ambiguity surrounding what could be considered ‘malicious’ or ‘corrupt,’ as well as the ease with which a plaintiff could accuse a judge of such conduct, Justice Field ruled in support of absolute judicial immunity in the Bradley v. Fisher case. This is largely because it is assumed that a judge can not properly resolve a case if there is a possibility they could be held liable, even if they are believed to have acted fallaciously (Rowden). This decision was also motivated by the idea that limiting judicial immunity to qualified immunity would likely trigger enormous legal backlash targeting judges because of case outcomes. Therefore, the Court declared that absolute judicial immunity was necessary to prevent judges from facing retaliation for their decisions.
This standard was further enforced by the US Supreme Court in Stump v. Sparkman (1978), where a judge faced criticism for approving a mother’s petition to have her daughter sterilized without her daughter’s consent. Despite the decision's controversial nature, the Supreme Court held that the judge was entitled to judicial immunity because the judge acted within their jurisdiction and did not violate any existing laws (Shaw).
The application of absolute judicial immunity has shaped the legal framework for judicial accountability. Because judges generally can not be held liable for their judicial acts through ordinary civil lawsuits for monetary damages, lawmakers have examined alternative ways to address alleged judicial misconduct.
Judicial Immunity in Practice
In recent years, judicial accountability has received increased attention in discussions about judicial misconduct, the range of judicial authority, and the methods used to address alleged improper judicial action. Supporters of increased judicial accountability argue that judges hold significant governmental authority and should therefore be subject to mechanisms to address alleged abuses of power. Several cases have also questioned the relationship between judicial accountability and the use of judicial immunity. For example, in Bright v. Gallia County, Ohio, attorney Robert Bright brought a claim against Judge David Evans after the judge took action against Bright for criticizing him. Attorney Bright had criticized Judge Evans’ decision to reject his client’s plea deal. Although Bright’s statements were found to have stayed within the bounds of professional decorum, Judge Evans took offense and removed Bright from almost seventy cases (Bright v. Gallia County, Ohio 2). Bright’s claims against the judge were subsequently barred due to judicial immunity.
Mireles v. Waco is another case involving alleged excessive conduct by an attorney. Public defender Howard Waco alleged that Judge Mireles ordered two officers to seize him with “excessive force,” essentially accusing him of acting outside his jurisdiction. Although the Supreme Court initially dismissed the case, the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that the judge’s actions were not judicial acts. The Supreme Court then reversed the Ninth Circuit, stating the judge’s action was a normal judicial decision and was not in complete absence of jurisdiction. This case particularly distinguished acting in excess of jurisdiction from acting in complete absence of jurisdiction. Thus, reinforcing the broad applicability of judicial immunity. These cases ultimately illustrate how judicial immunity can prevent a judge from being held personally liable in a civil lawsuit, even when the underlying conduct raises disciplinary concerns. However, other cases have established limitations on judicial immunity. In Forrester v. White, the Supreme Court distinguished between judicial and administrative actions, explaining that the judge's demotion and discharge of an employee on the basis of sex constituted an administrative action rather than a judicial one. Therefore, the judge was not granted absolute immunity for this conduct.
Efforts for Modern Judicial Accountability
In response to these concerns surrounding judicial misconduct, various methods are used to regulate judicial power. These include appellate review, disciplinary hearings, impeachment, and laws. Each of these methods differs in the way that it addresses misconduct; some are intended to prevent it while others consider the subsequent punishment. These disciplinary efforts typically avoid subjecting judges to regular civil lawsuits for the same reasons of judicial immunity aforementioned. Judges are also generally protected from being required to pay damages to plaintiffs, preventing the threat of monetary liability from motivating lawsuits based solely on an individual’s opinion.
Recent bills proposed by lawmakers have taken a targeted approach to hold judges accountable. The Judicial Accountability for Irresponsible Leniency (JAIL) Act was proposed by Senator Tim Sheehy after a woman named Iryna Zarutska was fatally stabbed on a North Carolina light rail train. The event happened in 2025, and Iryna’s family sued the city, claiming that the attack could have been prevented (Dunbar). Both Tim Sheehy and former U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi also believed this, stating that “soft-on-crime” policies that release repeat offenders pose a threat to the public’s safety (“Sheehy Introduces Bill”; “Justice Department Charges”). Sheehy’s proposed legislation illustrates the growing tension between judicial discretion and accountability. Rather than fully eliminating judicial immunity, the bill would allow civil action against judges whose actions are alleged to have contributed to a preventable crime. The bill also specifically prevents judicial immunity as a defense (“Sheehy Introduces Bill”).
Another proposed measure, the Transparency and Responsibility in Upholding Standards in the Judiciary (TRUST) Act, focuses on a different aspect of judicial accountability. Rather than primarily addressing civil liability for release decisions, the legislation proposes additional requirements concerning judicial conduct and oversight. These proposals demonstrate how lawmakers have considered different approaches to addressing perceived limitations in existing mechanisms of judicial accountability.
Changes to judicial accountability could have significant legal and institutional effects. Expanding the circumstances in which judges can be held personally liable could provide additional avenues for addressing judicial misconduct and may increase oversight of judicial decisions. However, reducing the protections provided by judicial immunity could also expose judges to more litigation based on their judicial decisions, potentially affecting judicial independence. The balance between judicial accountability and judicial independence therefore remains an important consideration when evaluating proposed changes to judicial immunity.