Absolute immunity cases

Absolute immunity is a concept cited in tens of thousands of cases, mostly at the state level and often without applying to the facts of the case.

“

When deciding whether absolute immunity applies, "we examine 'the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it.'" Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 127, 118 S. Ct. 502, 139 L. Ed. 2d 471 (1997) (quoting Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 229, 108 S. Ct. 538, 98 L. Ed. 2d 555 (1988)). Thus, prosecutors are not entitled to absolute immunity when they "perform[] the investigative functions normally performed by a detective or police officer." Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273, 113 S. Ct. 2606, 125 L. Ed. 2d 209 (1993). Taking the complaint's well-pleaded factual allegations as true, which we must do at the motion-to-dismiss stage, Baer engaged in quintessential "police investigative work" when he affirmatively searched for and approached a new witness to establish motive. Id. at 274 n.5. Discovery may reveal that these allegations are false and that Baer's role was limited to interviewing a witness in preparation for trial. If so, he may yet be entitled to absolute immunity. But those are not things that we can say at this early stage of the proceedings when we [*621] must accept the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of Roberts. Thus, we will affirm because Baer has failed to show that he is entitled to absolute immunity on the face of the complaint.

”

Roberts v. Lau, 90 F.4th 618, 620-21 (3d Cir. 2024).

Additional important precedents concerning absolute immunity include:

• Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993) (perhaps a narrow view of absolute immunity)
• Buser v. Raymond, 476 F.3d 565 (8th Cir. 2007) (assembling cases concerning whether a state medical board is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity)
• Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1978) (broadening judicial absolute immunity to include administrative law judges and even prosecutors)
• Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193 (1985) (absolute immunity for judges from liability, as established by common law)
• Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2001) (absolute immunity does not protect the fabrication of evidence by government)
• DiBlasio v. Novello, 344 F.3d 292, 301 (2d Cir. 2003) (in New York, medical board officials -- the Health Commission and an investigator -- who participate in the summary suspension of a physician's license are not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity because their actions "are insufficiently similar to a judicial proceeding to warrant absolute immunity, and that neither Novello's nor Hampton's role in the summary suspension was 'functionally comparable' to that of a judge or prosecutor"
• Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (1988) (absolute immunity should be “quite sparing” in application)
• Hoggard v. Rhodes, 141 S. Ct. 2421 (2021) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (criticizing why "university officers, who have time to make calculated choices about enacting or enforcing unconstitutional policies," should obtain immunity while supporting giving immunity to police officers making split-second decisions)
• Morgan v. Chapman, 969 F.3d 238 (5th Cir. 2020) (state medical board investigators are not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity)
• Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) (quoted by Saxner as to the absolute liability of judges)
• Plumhoff v. Rick, 572 U.S. 765 (2014) (qualified immunity for police officers because they have to react very quickly, without time for deliberation)
• Watts v. Burkhart, 978 F.2d 269 (6th Cir. 1992) (en banc) (extending absolute immunity to medical boards, and overruling its contrary precedent of merely seven years earlier)