Mireles v. Waco

{{Use mdy dates|date=February 2025}}

{{Infobox SCOTUS case

|Litigants=Mireles v. Waco

|ArgueDate=

|ArgueYear=

|DecideDate=October 21

|DecideYear=1991

|FullName=

|USVol=502

|USPage=9

|Docket=

|ParallelCitations=

|Prior=

|Subsequent=

|Holding=A state judge is absolutely immune to liability for acts committed while presiding over their court.

|Dissent=Stevens

|Dissent2=Scalia

|JoinDissent2=Kennedy

|PerCuriam=Yes

|NotParticipating=

|LawsApplied=

}}

Mireles v. Waco, {{ussc|volume=502|page=9|year=1991|el=no}}, was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a state judge is absolutely immune to liability for acts committed while presiding over their court.{{ussc|name=Mireles v. Waco|volume=502|page=9|year=1991|source=f}}.{{Cite book |last=Lieberman |first=Jethro K. |title=A Practical Companion to the Constitution |year=1999 |pages=239|chapter=Immunity From Suit}}

Description

When a defense lawyer failed to appear for a scheduled hearing, the judge not only issued a bench warrant for his arrest, but instructed the police sent to arrest him to "rough him up a little" to teach him not to skip court dates. Although this was entirely unprofessional and possibly criminal, the judge was held, by the Supreme Court, to have absolute immunity from a lawsuit arising from the resulting beating, because the misbehavior occurred entirely within his activities as a judge presiding over a court.

Stevens dissented because he did not believe that ordering police officers to use excessive force was a judicial act. Justices Scalia and Kennedy dissented because the case did not receive briefing and argument before the decision; additionally, they believed the situation was so rare that a Supreme Court decision on the subject was unnecessary.

See also

References

{{reflist}}