Supreme Court weighs in on judicial immunity?reluctantly

• Author: Allen Pusey
• Pages: 72-72

IMAGES COURTESY OF WILLIAM H. WILLENNAR GENEALOGY CENTER, A SERVICE OF ECKHART PUBLIC LIBRARY; INDY STAR\USA TODAY NETWORK

IT WAS THE SUMMER OF 1971 in Rust Belt

Indiana, and in a sma ll house in working-

class Auburn, the tensions be tween Ora Spitler

McFarlin and her youngest daughter were as

familiar a s the sound of the Bee Gees.

Linda Kay Spitler, 15, was hangi ng out with an

older crowd. Some of them were boys. She stayed

out late; occasionally a ll night. Ora was strict and

fought constantly with her daug hter. She knew

what could happen. Linda’s sister had her fi rst

child as a high school senior, and Ora was det er-

mined that it would not happen to Linda .

Ora met with a lawyer who helped her d raw up an

unusual document. It purport ed to be a court petition,

but it read like a hold harmless a greement—authorizing

doctors at the local hospita l to perform a tubal ligation.

Though Linda’s school progress was in keeping w ith her

age, the document alleged she wa s “somewhat retarded.”

It proposed the surgery was i n Linda’s “best intere st”

because it was “impos sible for [Ora] to maintain a nd

control a continuous observation of the act ivities of said

daughter each and ever y day.”

On July 9, 1971, the document was submit ted to DeKalb

County Circuit Judge Harold D. Stump, who signed it the

same day. There was no hearing or other docketed event ,

only an ex parte mee ting with the judge, Ora and her law-

yer. There was no guardian a d litem appointed, no voice

or notice given to the young teen and no stat utory author-

ity cited by the judge to expla in his signature.

Six days later, Linda was a dmitted to DeKalb Memorial

Hospital for what she thought was merely an appendec-

tomy. Only several years later, aft er her marriage to Leo

Sparkman fai led to produce children, did she discover

that she had been steri lized.

Leo and Linda Spark man fi led a lawsuit in federa l

court accusi ng her mother; her mother’s lawyer, Warren

Sunday; the doctors; and DeKa lb Memorial of conspiri ng

with Stump to v iolate their constitutional rights.

The case was met w ith quick dismissal on the grounds

of judicial immunity, a centurie s-old principle of due pro-

cess designed and refi ned to protect judges f rom personal

liability for unpopular decis ions. Trial Judge

Jesse Eschbach declared t hat Stump had

signed the document in his o cia l judicial

capacity and wa s therefore absolutely immune

from personal legal a ction. With Stump

removed, he reasoned, no federal cla im could

be supported, thereby reliev ing all other parties

from the lawsuit.

At the Chicago-ba sed 7th U.S. Circuit Court

of Appeals, the reac tion was di erent. India na

at the time allowed cour t-ordered steriliza-

tions, but only under certain , limited circumstances—

none of which had applied to Linda. A llowing judges to

act outside their authority w ithout consequence, the court

wrote unani mously, “would be sanctioning ty ranny from

the bench.”

Stump appealed to the U.S. Supreme Cour t, where the

case was approached wa rily.

“This is a sordid ca se,” a law clerk wrote recommend-

ing against cer tiorari. “If this court grant s review, the case

will attra ct even wider attention and publicity than it has

already received—al l for the wrong reasons.”

At oral arguments, t he justices appeared torn between

the practical c ase for judicial immunity and the abhorrent

circumsta nces of Stump’s action.

Justice Potter Stewar t wondered if immunity might

apply to a judge who authorized chopping o a c hild’s

right hand to curb a mother’s concern about k leptomania.

Justice Thurgood Marshal l, though horrifi ed by Stump’s

disregard of due process, la mented potential curbs on

judicial immunity: “ There are many experienced judges

who have made mistakes.”

On March 28, 1978, the court ruled 5-3 i n favor of

Stump. “A judge is absolutely immune from liability for

his judicial act s even if his exercise of authority is fl awed

by the commission of grave procedura l errors,” Justice

Byron White wrote for the majority.

In dissent, however, Stewar t saw nothing judicial in

Stump’s actions: “A judge is not free, like a loose cannon,

to infl ict indiscriminate dam age whenever he announces

that he is acting in hi s judicial capacity.” Q

72 || ABA JOURNAL MARCH 2019

Supreme Court

weighs in

on judicial

immunity—

reluctantly

Precedents || By Allen Pusey

Jamie Renee

Coleman, formerly

Linda Sparkman,

at her Waterloo,

Indiana, home

in 2007.

March 28, 1978

Judge Harold St ump