Pierson v. Ray/Dissent Douglas

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting.

I do not think that all judges, under all circumstances, no matter how outrageous their conduct are immune from suit under 17 Stat. 13, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court's ruling is not justified by the admitted need for a vigorous and independent judiciary, is not commanded by the common-law doctrine of judicial immunity, and does not follow inexorably from our prior decisions.

The statute, which came on the books as § 1 of the Ku Klux Klan Act of April 20, 1871, 17 Stat. 13, provides that 'every person' who under color of state law or custom 'subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen * *  * to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.' To most, 'every person' would mean every person, not every person except judges. Despite the plain import of those words, the court decided in Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 71 S.Ct. 783, 95 L.Ed. 1019, that state legislators are immune from suit as long as the deprivation of civil rights which they caused a person occurred while the legislators 'were acting in a field where legislators traditionally have power to act.' Id., at 379, 71 S.Ct. at 789. I dissented from the creation of that judicial exception as I do from the creation of the present one.

The congressional purpose seems to me to be clear. A condition of lawlessness existed in certain of the States, under which people were being denied their civil rights. Congress intended to provide a remedy for the wrongs being perpetrated. And its members were not unaware that certain members of the judiciary were implicated in the state of affairs which the statute was intended to rectify. It was often noted that '(i)mmunity is given to crime, and the records of the public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress.' Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374. Mr. Rainey of South Carolina noted that '(T)he courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity.' Id., at 394. Congressman Beatty of Ohio claimed that it was the duty of Congress to listen to the appeals of those who 'by reason of popular sentiment or secret organizations or prejudiced juries or bribed judges, (cannot) obtain the rights and privileges due an American citizen * *  * .' Id., at 429. The members supporting the proposed measure were apprehensive that there had been a complete breakdown in the administration of justice in certain States and that laws nondiscriminatory on their face were being applied in a discriminatory manner, that the newly won civil rights of the Negro were being ignored, and that the Constitution was being defied. it was against this background that the section was passed, and it is against this background that it should be interpreted.

It is said that, at the time of the statute's enactment, the doctrine of judicial immunity was well settled and that Congress cannot be presumed to have intended to abrogate the doctrine since it did not clearly evince such a purpose. This view is beset by many difficulties. It assumes that Congress could and should specify in advance all the possible circumstances to which a remedial statute might apply and state which cases are within the scope of a statute.

'Underlying (this) view is an atomistic conception of     intention, coupled with what may be called a pointer theory      of meaning. This view conceives the mind to be directed     toward individual things, rather than toward general ideas,      toward distinct situations of fact rather than toward some      significance in human affairs that these situations may      share. If this view were taken seriously, then we would have     to regard the intention of the draftsman of a statute      directed against 'dangerous weapons' as being directed toward      an endless series of individual objects: revolvers, automatic pistols, daggers, Bowie knives, etc. If a      court applies the statute to a weapon its draftsman had not      thought of, then it would be 'legislaing,' not      'interpreting,' as even more obviously it would be if it were      to apply the statute to a weapon not yet invented when the      statute was passed.' Fuller, The Morality of Law 84 (1964).

Congress of course acts in the context of existing common-law rules, and in construing a statute a court considers the 'common law before the making of the Act.' Heydon's Case, 3 Co.Rep. 7a, 76 Eng.Rep. 637 (Ex. 1584). But Congress enacts a statute to remedy the inadequacies of the pre-existing law, including the common law. It cannot be presumed that the common law is the perfection of reason, is superior to statutory law (Sedgwick, Construction of Statutes 270 (1st ed. 1857); Pound, Common Law and Legislation, 21 Harv.L.Rev. 383, 404-406 (1908)), and that the legislature always changes law for the worse. Nor should the canon of construction 'statutes in derogation of the common law are to be strictly construed' be applied so as to weaken a remedial statute whose purpose is to remedy the defects of the preexisting law.

The position that Congress did not intend to change the common-law rule of judicial immunity ignores the fact that every member of Congress who spoke to the issue assumed that the words of the statute meant what they said and that judges would be liable. Many members of Congress objected to the statute because it imposed liability on members of the judiciary. Mr. Arthur of Kentucky opposed the measure because:

'Hitherto * *  * no judge or court has been held liable,      civilly or criminally, for judicial acts *  *  *. Under the     provisions of (section 1) every judge in the State court *  *      * will enter upon and pursue the call of official duty with      the sward of Damocles suspended over him *  *  * .' Cong. Globe,     42d Cong., 1st Sess., 365-366.

'There have been two or three instances already under the     civil rights bill of State judges being taken into the United      States district court, sometimes upon indictment for the      offense *  *  * of honestly and conscientiously deciding the      law to be as they understood it to be. * *  *

'Is (section 1) intended to perpetuate that? Is it intended     to enlarge it? Is it intended to extend it so that no longer     a judge sitting on the bench to decide causes can decide them      free from any fear except that of impeachment which never      lies in the absence of corrupt motive? Is that to be     extended, so that every judge of a State may be liable to be      dragged before some Federal judge to vindicate his opinion      and to be mulcted in damages if that Federal judge shall      think the opinion was erroneous? That is the language of this     bill.' Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., Appendix 217.

Mr. Lewis of Kentucky expressed the fear that:

'By the first section, in certain cases, the judge of a State     court, though acting under oath of office, is made liable to      a suit in the Federal court and subject to damages for his      decision against a suitor. * *  * ' Cong. Globe, 42d, Cong.,     1st Sess., 385.

Yet despite the repeated fears of its opponents, and the explicit recognition that the section would subject judges to suit, the section remained as it was proposed: it applied to 'any person.' There was no exception for members of the judiciary. In light of the sharply contested nature of the issue of judicial immunity it would be reasonable to assume that the judiciary would have been expressly exempted from the wide sweep of the section, if Congress had intended such a result.

The section's purpose was to provide redress for the deprivation of civil rights. It was recognized that certain members of the judiciary were instruments of oppression and were partially responsible for the wrongs to be remedied. The parade of cases coming to this Court shows that a similar condition now obtains in some of the States. Some state courts have been instruments of suppression of civil rights. The methods may have changed; the means may have become more subtle; but the wrong to be remedied still exists.

Today's decision is not dictated by our prior decisions. In Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 25 L.Ed. 676, the Court held that a judge who excluded Negroes from juries could be held liable under the Act of March 1, 1875 (18 Stat. 335), one of the Civil Rights Acts. The Court assumed that the judge was merely performing a ministerial function. But it went on to state that the judge would be liable under the statute even if his actions were judicial. It is one thing to say that the common-law doctrine of judicial immunity is a defense to a common-law cause of action. But it is quite another to say that the common-law immunity rule is a defense to liability which Congress has imposed upon 'any officer or other person,' as in Ex parte Virginia or upon 'every person' as in these cases.

The immunity which the Court today grants the judiciary is not necessary to preserve an independent judiciary. If the threat of civil action lies in the background of litigation, so the argument goes, judges will be reluctant to exercise the discretion and judgment inherent in their position and vital to the effective operation of the judiciary. We should, of course, not protect a member of the judiciary 'who is in fact guilty of using his powers to vent his spleen upon others, or for any other personal motive not connected with the public good'. Gregoire v. Biddle, 2 Cir., 177 F.2d 579, 581. To deny recovery to a person injured by the ruling of a judge acting for personal gain or out of personal motives would be 'monstrous.' Ibid. But, it is argued that absolute immunity is necessary to prevent the chilling effects of a judicial inquiry, or the threat of such inquiry, into whether, in fact, a judge has been unfaithful to his oath of office. Thus, it is necessary to protect the guilty as well as the innocent.

The doctrine of separation of powers is, of course, applicable only to the relations of coordinate branches of the same government, not to the relations between the branches of the Federal Government and those of the States. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 210, 82 S.Ct. 691, 706, 7 L.Ed.2d 663. Any argument that Congress could not impose liability on state judges for the deprivation of civil rights would thus have to be based upon the claim that doing so would violate the theory of division of powers between the Federal and State Governments. This claim has been foreclosed by the cases recognizing 'that Congress has the power to enforce provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment against those who carry a badge of authority of a State * *  * .' Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 171-172, 81 S.Ct. 473, 476, 5 L.Ed.2d 492. In terms of the power of Congress, I can see no difference between imposing liability on a state police officer (Monroe v. Pape, supra) and on a state judge. The question presented is not of constitutional dimension; it is solely a question of statutory interpretation.

The argument that the actions of public officials must not be subjected to judicial scrutiny because to do so would have an inhibiting effect on their work, is but a more sophisticated manner of saying 'The King can do no wrong.' Chief Justice Cockburn long ago disposed of the argument that liability would deter judges:

'I cannot believe that judges * *  * would fail to discharge      their duty faithfully and fearlessly according to their oaths      and consciences *  *  * from any fear of exposing themselves to      actions at law. I am persuaded that the number of such     actions would be infinitely small and would be easily      disposed of.

While, on the other hand, I can easily conceive cases in     which judicial opportunity might be so perverted and abused      for the purpose of injustice as that, on sound principles,      the authors of such wrong ought to be responsible to the      parties wronged.' Dawkins v. Lord Paulet, L.R. 5 Q.B. 94, 110      (C. J. Cockburn, dissenting).

This is not to say that a judge who makes an honest mistake should be subjected to civil liability. It is necessary to exempt judges from liability for the consequences of their honest mistakes. The judicial function involves an informed exercise of judgment. It is often necessary to choose between differing versions of fact, to reconcile opposing interests, and to decide closely contested issues. Decisions must often be made in the heat of trial. A vigorous and independent mind is needed to perform such delicate tasks. It would be unfair to require a judge to exercise his independent judgment and then to punish him for having exercised it in a manner which, in retrospect, was erroneous. Imposing liability for mistaken, though honest judicial acts, would curb the independent mind and spirit needed to perform judicial functions. Thus, a judge who sustains a conviction on what he forthrightly considers adequate evidence should not be subjected to liability when an appellate court decides that the evidence was not adequate. Nor should a judge who allows a conviction under what is later held an unconstitutional statute.

But that is far different from saying that a judge shall be immune from the consequences of any of his judicial actions, and that he shall not be liable for the knowing and intentional deprivation of a person's civil rights. What about the judge who conspires with local law enforcement officers to 'railroad' a dissenter? What about the judge who knowingly turns a trial into a 'kangaroo' court? Or one who intentionally flouts the Constitution in order to obtain a conviction? Congress, I think, concluded that the evils of allowing intentional, knowing deprivations of civil rights to go unredressed far outweighed the speculative inhibiting effects which might attend an inquiry into a judicial deprivation of civil rights.

The plight of the oppressed is indeed serious. Under City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 86 S.Ct. 1800, 16 L.Ed.2d 944, the defendant cannot remove to a federal court to prevent a state court from depriving him of his civil rights. And under the rule announced today, the person cannot recover damages for the deprivation.