“Both Tenney and Pierson faced strong dissent from within the Court, as well. Justice Douglas, who departed from the majority in both cases, opened his dissent in Pierson by stating, ‘I do not think that all judges, under all circumstances, no matter how outrageous their conduct are immune from suit.’ Justice Douglas acknowledged the importance of a ‘vigorous and independent judiciary’ but concluded that it would be ‘monstrous’ to refuse ‘recovery to a person injured by the ruling of a judge acting for personal gain.'”

Source: Timothy M. Stengel. “Absolute Judicial Immunity Makes Absolutely No Sense. An Argument For An Exception To Judicial Immunity.” 84 Temple Law Review 1071, 1086-1087. 2012; citing Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 558-59, 564 (1967) (Douglas, J., dissenting)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s