The Court also took this opportunity to address the attributes of a judicial act, defining it broadly. The Court rejected the daughter’s argument that the judge did not act in his judicial capacity because the case was not given a docket number and the petition was not considered in a hearing. Thus, formality is not necessarily indicative of a judicial act. Rather, the factors that make up a judicial act ‘relate to the nature of the act itself, i.e., whether it is a function normally performed by a judge, and to the expectations of the parties, i.e., whether they dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity.’
The Court also rejected the argument that an act that is ‘totally devoid of judicial concern for the interests and well-being of the [wronged party]’ could not be considered a judicial act. The Court relied on the reasoning from Bradley that occasional unfair rulings are the cost of having an independent judiciary. The Court reasoned that disagreement with a judicial act does not justify depriving a judge of his immunity because it is in the interest of justice that a judge ‘act upon his own convictions.’ Thus, Judge Stump performed a judicial act within his jurisdiction and was deemed to be immune.
A judge can “act upon his own convictions” even if the judge is corrupt and/or racist and intentionally violates his/her Oath of Office and the Judicial Code of Conduct?!? Wtf?!
Source: Timothy M. Stengel. “Absolute Judicial Immunity Makes Absolutely No Sense. An Argument For An Exception To Judicial Immunity.” 84 Temple Law Review 1071, 1078. 2012