## Facts

- A mother petitioned an Indiana circuit court for authority to sterilize her 15-year-old daughter, describing her as “somewhat retarded.”
- The circuit judge approved the petition the same day in an ex parte proceeding, without notice to the daughter, a hearing, or appointment of a guardian ad litem.
- The daughter underwent a sterilization procedure after being told she was having her appendix removed.
- About two years later, after marriage and inability to become pregnant, she learned she had been sterilized.
- The daughter and her husband sued the judge and others for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging constitutional violations.

## Issues

1. Whether a state judge is absolutely immune from § 1983 damages for approving an ex parte sterilization petition affecting a minor without notice, hearing, or representation.
2. Whether the judge’s approval was a “judicial act” and whether it was taken in the “clear absence of all jurisdiction” under state law.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and held the judge was entitled to absolute judicial immunity from damages.
- The Court concluded the judge’s approval of the petition was a judicial act.
- The Court found the judge did not act in the clear absence of all jurisdiction because the circuit court was a court of general jurisdiction and was not expressly foreclosed from considering such a petition.
- The Court held allegations of grave procedural error or constitutional infirmity did not defeat immunity where the act was judicial and not taken in clear absence of jurisdiction.
- Dissents argued the conduct was not a judicial act and that the procedure effectively prevented review, making immunity inappropriate.

## Legal Principles

- Judges are absolutely immune from damages for judicial acts unless they act in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.
- Judicial immunity is not lost because the act was erroneous, malicious, or in excess of authority.
- Whether conduct is “judicial” turns on the nature of the act and the expectations of the parties, not on compliance with ordinary procedural formalities.
- Serious procedural due process defects, standing alone, do not convert a judicial act into a nonjudicial act or eliminate immunity where jurisdiction exists.

## Conclusion

The Court held that absolute judicial immunity barred a § 1983 damages suit against a state judge who approved an ex parte sterilization petition, because the approval was a judicial act and was not taken in the clear absence of the court’s jurisdiction, even though the procedure lacked basic safeguards.


Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978)