Proof that Absolute Immunity from Suit is Not Constitutional

7 Pages Posted: 9 Jul 2011 Last revised: 18 Jul 2011

See all articles by Pat McPherron

Pat McPherron

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Date Written: July 9, 2011

Abstract

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Vodak v. City of Chicago conditions on academic research and rules municipalities have been overly protected from liabilities of their officials. Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stevens states Congress should enact legislation to allow suit for prosecutorial misconduct, shortly after Justice Ginsburg read aloud the court’s dissent in Connick v. Thompson. Waiting in the wings is the most sacred cow of all – absolute immunity for judicial acts. There are two prongs to the proof. One prong shows common law did not desire absolute immunity at the time of ratifying the constitution. The other prong establishes that a policy of absolute immunity is not socially equitable as per the constitution.

Suggested Citation

McPherron, Pat, Proof that Absolute Immunity from Suit is Not Constitutional (July 9, 2011). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1881347 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1881347

Pat McPherron (Contact Author)

affiliation not provided to SSRN ( email )

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
59
Abstract Views
619
Rank
648,431
PlumX Metrics