Changes

'''Judicial immunity''' is a general legal doctrine that prevents [[lawsuit]]s against [[judge]]s.

'''Judicial immunity''' is a general legal doctrine that prevents [[lawsuit]]s against [[judge]]s.  It does not preclude injunctive relief or awards of attorney's fees allowed by statute.

Three [[United States Supreme Court]] cases form an appropriate starting point for analyzing borderline questions of judicial immunity.  In ''[[Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union]]'', 446 U.S. 719, 736 (1980), the Supreme Court held that judicial immunity did not bar injunctive relief against the Virginia Supreme Court and its chief justice. [[Plaintiff]]s brought a facial challenge to an allegedly unconstitutional bar rule and sought to enjoin defendants from prospectively enforcing it against attorneys. In upholding the injunction, the Court distinguished between the various capacities in which the state's supreme court was authorized to act under state law. Thus, in conjunction with administering bar matters, the state's highest court engages in adjudicative duties (determining moral fitness of attorney applicants), legislative or rule-making duties (promulgating bar admission rules [degree] and procedures), and enforcement duties (applying the bar rules against [[attorney]]s or bar applicants), but judicial immunity would not per se apply to the latter two functions. In Consumers Union, the Court held that plaintiffs were entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief without regard to the defendants' status as judicial officers because the lawsuit arose out of their role as "enforcers" of the bar rules. Thus, like any state official who enforces laws, injunctive and declaratory relief were available notwithstanding that defendants were judicial officers.  ''Id.''

Three [[United States Supreme Court]] cases form an appropriate starting point for analyzing borderline questions of judicial immunity.  In ''[[Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union]]'', 446 U.S. 719, 736 (1980), the Supreme Court held that judicial immunity did not bar injunctive relief against the Virginia Supreme Court and its chief justice. [[Plaintiff]]s brought a facial challenge to an allegedly unconstitutional bar rule and sought to enjoin defendants from prospectively enforcing it against attorneys. In upholding the injunction, the Court distinguished between the various capacities in which the state's supreme court was authorized to act under state law. Thus, in conjunction with administering bar matters, the state's highest court engages in adjudicative duties (determining moral fitness of attorney applicants), legislative or rule-making duties (promulgating bar admission rules [degree] and procedures), and enforcement duties (applying the bar rules against [[attorney]]s or bar applicants), but judicial immunity would not per se apply to the latter two functions. In Consumers Union, the Court held that plaintiffs were entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief without regard to the defendants' status as judicial officers because the lawsuit arose out of their role as "enforcers" of the bar rules. Thus, like any state official who enforces laws, injunctive and declaratory relief were available notwithstanding that defendants were judicial officers.  ''Id.''