Judicial Immunity: The Sky Is Not the Limit

• Pages: 8-8
• Date: 01 April 2025
• Published date: 01 April 2025
• Author: Samantha J. Stillo
• Subject Matter: Civil Law

federal appeals court has

rejected a judge’s attempted

reliance on the judicial

immunity doctrine follow-

ing a sua sponte war-

rantless search of a litigant’s house by

the judge and law enforcement o-

cers on 10 minutes’ notice. In Gibson v.

Goldston, the U.S. Court of Appeals for

the Fourth Circuit found that the defen-

dant judge “stepped outside of her

judicial role when she personally par-

ticipated” in the search of the litigant’s

home, and found that such activities

were “not eligible for the protections of

judicial immunity.” While ABA Litigation

Section leaders generally agree with

the appellate court’s decision, practitio-

ners are encouraged to “make records”

to preserve their appellate rights and to

be prepared to take swift action

during errant court proceedings.

In September 2018, the judge at

issue granted the plainti and his ex-

wife’s divorce, and adopted their pro-

posed property settlement agreement.

On September 26, 2019, the plainti

f‌iled a petition for contempt, alleging

defects in the property disbursement.

On March 4, 2020, the judge presided

over a hearing that was held on the

plainti’s contempt petition. During

that hearing, the defendant judge, sua

sponte, ordered the parties to “recon-

vene” at the plainti’s home address in

10 minutes but “without explanation as

to why the home visit was necessary.”

Based on the court’s order, the plain-

ti, the plainti’s ex-wife and her attor-

ney, the judge, and the baili visited

the defendant’s home. On arrival, and

over the plainti’s objections, the judge

entered the plainti’s property without

a search warrant. Though the plain-

ti attempted to record the interac-

tion, the judge ordered the plainti to

stop recording. However, unbeknownst

to the judge, the baili recorded the

search.

The search lasted about 20 to 30

minutes and involved various parts

Judicial Immunity: The Sky Is Not

the Limit

of the house, in which many dierent

items of personal property were seized

from the plainti’s residence without

consent.

After video footage of the events

were publicized, the West Virginia

Judicial Disciplinary Counsel received

two complaints against the defendant

judge. On September 18, 2020, the

West Virginia Judicial Investigation

Commission issued a Formal Statement

of Charges, f‌iled with the Supreme

Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Following a disciplinary proceeding,

the Judicial Disciplinary Counsel cen-

sured the defendant judge and f‌ined

her $1,000.

In March 2021, the plainti f‌iled a

lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for

the Southern District of West Virginia

against the defendant judge and others,

claiming that the warrantless search

and seizure of his property “violated

his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment

rights, that the restrictions on record-

ing the incident violated the First

Amendment, and that [the defendant’s]

practice of conducting ‘home visits’

violated the Equal Protection Clause

by disadvantaging pro se litigants like

himself.” The plainti also sought com-

pensatory and punitive damages under

42 U.S.C. § 1983, in addition to attor-

ney fees and injunctive and declaratory

relief.

The defendant judge moved for

summary judgment claiming she was

entitled to absolute judicial immunity.

The district court denied the judge’s

motion, f‌inding that the search of the

plainti’s home and seizure of his prop-

erty were “nonjudicial acts to which

judicial immunity did not attach.” The

district court further found that the

judge’s acts were “nonjudicial” because

conducting searches and seizures was

a “quintessentially executive function

not normally performed by judges.”

The judge appealed the district court’s

rejection of her attempt to invoke the

judicial immunity doctrine.

By Samantha J. Stillo, L itigation News Contributing Editor

The court of appeals acknowledged

that judicial immunity is “strong medi-

cine” that serves as an “absolute bar”

to any liability imposed against judges

in a lawsuit, but noted that such potent

medicine is limited by its “indiscrimi-

nate prescription.” The appellate court

held that judicial immunity does not

protect judges who engage in “nonju-

dicial” acts and that the defendant’s

actions in ordering a warrantless search

and seizure of the plainti’s home

“clearly exceeded the most common

understandings of the proper judicial

role.” The court of appeals concluded

that the defendant “stepped outside

her judicial role when she personally

participated in the search of [the plain-

ti’s] home,” as such acts are executive,

not judicial.

While Section leaders agree with the

court of appeals’ decision, they urge

procedural diligence to make sure cli-

ents’ rights are preserved. “As a practi-

tioner, make your objections known on

the record to preserve appellate rights,”

recommends Kenneth R. Berman,

Boston, MA, Co-Chair of the Litigation

Section’s Committee on the American

Judicial System.

Section leaders also call for align-

ment of principles between judges and

lawyers. “Mutual respect and commu-

nication between the bench and the

bar is critical in these situations,” adds

Rita Aquilio, Watchung, NJ, Co-Chair

of the Section’s Family Law Litigation

Committee.

SPRING 20 25 • VOL. 50 NO. 3

8 | A BA LITIGATION SECTION

ETHICS STRU GGLES IN THE LEGAL WOR LD

Published in Litigation News Volu me 50, Number 3, Sprin g 2025. © 2025 by t he American Bar A ssociation. Re produced with per mission. All righ ts reserved. Thi s information or an y portion there of may not be copied or

disseminated in an y form or by any means or s tored in an electro nic database or re trieval system wi thout the express w ritten consen t of the American B ar Associatio n.