SCOTUS Limits Government Immunity

In all the attention paid to the marriage equality cases, it was easy to miss a rare bit of good news from the Supreme Court when it comes to criminal justice and government immunity issues. On March 27, the court handed down a 9-0 ruling in Millbrook v United States limiting the immunity of prison guards to suits over abuse and misconduct.

The decision was remarkably fast, having been argued on Feb. 19 and decided on March 27, and remarkably unanimous. Rarely do we see unanimous rulings on criminal justice cases. Rarer still do we see a ruling written by Justice Thomas that upholds any rights of prisoners or the accused in any criminal justice case. The case involves an inmate who sued the government after allegedly being sexually assaulted by prison guards. The government is usually immune to suits based on the conduct of its employees and the lower courts had dismissed the case for that reason, but the Supreme Court overturned those rulings and allowed the case to go forward.

Also interesting is that this is a rare case where the Obama administration was on the side of civil liberties in court (in fact, I can only think of two such cases where they have done so, this one and a case on recording the police). But they weren’t initially. Like the DOMA case, the DOJ originally defended the government’s immunity, but changed their position when the case got to the Supreme Court. So the court appointed an amicus attorney to argue in favor of total immunity while the DOJ filed a brief on the right side of the case.

It’s a good ruling, but it’s only barely a first step. Prosecutorial immunity has to go as well.

"Fee Fie Foe Trump, Donny got his Putin Dump."

Trump Publicly Fellates Putin. Film at ..."
"The libertarians led the way, back in the 1970s when they were equating ALL forms ..."

Jones: Facebook Blocking Fake News Is ..."
"Not going to happen. His appointees are grifters just like himself. And he's the unthinking ..."

Time for a Mass Exodus from ..."
"But saying that Obama was a drug dealing gay prostitute was totes fine eh? (wink ..."

Trump Publicly Fellates Putin. Film at ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • slc1

    It’s a good ruling, but it’s only barely a first step. Prosecutorial immunity has to go as well.

    As frequent commenter Ben P, who is an attorney, has argued, complete removal of prosecutorial immunity is a bad idea as it might well inhibit prosecutors from doing their job. What should be done is to carve out exceptions to cover egregious conduct such as suborning perjury, suppressing exculpatory evidence, malicious prosecution, etc. The poster child for such exceptions is one Mike Nifong, of Duke lacrosse players infame.

  • Didaktylos

    What is needed is not just the removal of prosecutorial immunity but the establishment of collective prosecutorial and judicial liability.

  • abb3w

    Malicious prosecution seems difficult to prove, involving more mens rea rather than mere conduct.

  • baal

    Great, we need the SCOTUS to tell us it’s not ok to rape prisoners… It’s a good outcome but note the undisputed facts from the case:

    “In his complaint, Millbrook alleged that, on March 5, 2010, he was forced to perform oral sex on a BOP correctional officer, while another officer held him in a choke hold and a third officer stood watch nearby. Millbrook claimed that the officers threatened to kill him if he did not comply with their demands. Millbrook alleged that he suffered physical injuries as a result of the incident and, accordingly, sought compensatory damages. “

    Had the case gone the otherway, the officers who were demanding blow jobs (backed up with death threats and violence) would have not been prosecutable.