09/23/2026
Judicial Immunity. The intent of this is supposed to be that Courts are permitted to exercise their judgement independently and freely, without fear of repercussion. However, family law litigants complain about this protection because it appears to be carte blanch for Judges to make any rulings they want, irrespective of what the law actually states. The bigger issue is that although Judges are supposed to interpret and apply the law, Courts that are appointed are done so by the governor based on their political affiliation and their views, rather than their ability to independently apply the law and be a gatekeeper of the constitution that the law requires. The below texts and explanation of Judicial Immunity, as it relates to Florida is taken from: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/ag-opinions/immunity-and-liabilty-of-chief-judge
Title 42 U.S.C. s. 1983 provides that "[e]very person" who acts under color of state law to deprive another of a constitutional right shall be answerable to that person in a suit for damages. The courts have, however, accepted that "[e]very person," means "every person except judges."[8]
As a general rule, a judge is not liable for acts done in the exercise of a judicial function, within the limits of his or her jurisdiction, no matter how erroneous, illegal, or malicious those acts may be. The term "jurisdiction," in the context of judicial immunity, means the judicial power to hear and determine a matter, not the manner, method, or correctness of the exercise of that power.[9]
However, judicial immunity does not automatically attach to all the types of conduct in which a judge may properly engage, but only to those acts which are of a judicial or quasi-judicial nature. The broad doctrine of judicial immunity does not apply to acts which are not judicial, but which are purely ministerial or administrative in nature. Thus, when a judge acts ministerially or is required to do a ministerial act, he is responsible for error or misconduct in like manner and to the same extent as all other ministerial officers and may enjoy a qualified good faith immunity from civil action.[10] The test for qualified immunity is an objective one: whether the conduct of a governmental official violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.[11] This test "focuses on the objective legal reasonableness of an official's act."[12]
In Forrester v. White, 108 S.Ct. 538 (1988), the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether a state court judge had absolute immunity from a suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. s. 1983 for his decision to dismiss a subordinate court employee. The employee, who had been a probation officer, alleged that she was demoted and discharged because of her s*x, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court concluded that the judge's decisions were not judicial acts for which he should be absolutely immune. While the Court recognized that it has never articulated a precise and general definition of the class of acts entitled to judicial immunity, it suggested a distinction between judicial acts and the administrative, legislative, or executive functions that judges may occasionally be assigned by law to perform. As the Court noted, "[a]dministrative decisions, even though they may be essential to the very functioning of the courts, have not . . . been regarded as judicial acts."[13] While certain actions taken in demoting and discharging the petitioner in Forrester, like many others involved in supervising court employees and overseeing the efficient operation of a court, may have been important in providing the necessary conditions of a sound adjudicative system, the Court found them to be administrative actions which could not meaningfully be distinguished from employment decisions made by other executive branch officials.
"No officer, employee, or agent of the state or of any of its subdivisions shall be held personally liable in tort or named as a party defendant in any action for any injury or damage suffered as a result of any act, event, or omission of action in the scope of his employment or function, unless such officer, employee, or agent acted in bad faith or with malicious purpose or in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety, or property. . . . The exclusive remedy for injury or damage suffered as a result of an act, event, or omission of an officer, employee, or agent of the state or any of its subdivisions or constitutional officers shall be by action against the governmental entity, or the head of such entity in his official capacity, or the constitutional officer of which the officer, employee, or agent is an employee, unless such act or omission was committed in bad faith or with malicious purpose or in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety, or property. The state or its subdivisions shall not be liable in tort for the acts or omissions of an officer, employee, or agent committed while acting outside the course and scope of his employment or committed in bad faith or with malicious purpose or in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety, or property."
As used in this act, "state agencies or subdivisions" include the judicial branch.[17] Without question a chief judge of a judicial circuit is a part of the judicial branch of government. However, Florida courts have determined that the common law principle of judicial immunity was not affected by the enactment of s. 768.28, F.S., and, consequently, judges continue to enjoy absolute immunity from damages liability for acts performed in the course of their judicial capacities unless such acts are undertaken with a clear absence of jurisdiction.[18] While recent federal case law recognizes a distinction between judicial actions and those of an administrative or ministerial nature for purposes of judicial immunity, I am not aware of any Florida case law which has yet made such a distinction in a tort action.
Immunity and liabilty of chief judge My Florida Legal
