Stump v Sparkman THE MUTILATION / STERILIZATION of a 15 year old young girl HAS GIVEN THE “ CASE LAW” not the “LAW” used by JUDGES across the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA to FALSELY BELIEVE THAT JUDGES are “ABOVE THE LAW” and have “ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY”
Supreme Court of the United States of America
Docket No. 76-1750 Burger Court / Citation 435 US 349 (1978) SCOTUS
5–3 DECISION FOR STUMP SCOTUS
MAJORITY OPINION BY BYRON R. WHITE
Potter Stewart
Thurgood Marshall
William J. Brennan, Jr.
Byron R. White
Warren E. Burger
Harry A. Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell, Jr. - There is a link to SoundCloud to listen to his dessent -
William H. Rehnquist
John Paul Stevens
Yes. Justice Byron R. White delivered the opinion of the 5-3 majority. The Court held that the law vested the district court judge with the power to entertain and act upon the petition for sterilization, and he is therefore immune from damages liability even if his approval of the petition was in error. The Court held that a judge could only be deprived of immunity when he acted in clear absence of jurisdiction. In this case, the court had general jurisdiction over the petition for sterilization, therefore, Judge Stump’s approval was a judicial act, and he was immunized from liability.
Justice Potter Stewart wrote a dissent, in which he argued that the scope of judicial immunity was a limited liability for judicial acts. Because approval of a petition for sterilization is not a function normally performed by a judge, it is not a judicial act. In a separate dissent, Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. argued that a judicial officer acted in a manner that precluded all resort to appellate or other judicial remedies and that the judge should not be entitled to immunity.
Justice William J. Brennan Jr. did not participate in the discussion or decision of the case.
Case opinions
Majority White, joined by Burger, Blackmun, Rehnquist, Stevens
Dissent Stewart, joined by Marshall, Powell
Dissent Powell
Brennan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Judge Harold D. Stump
Linda Kay Spitler Sparkman
George E. Fruechtenicht
Richard H. Finley
Facts of the case
In 1971 Ora Spitler McFarlin presented a petition for sterilization of her mildly mentally disabled daughter, Linda Kay Spitler Sparkman, to Judge Harold D. Stump. Judge Stump concluded sterilization was in Sparkman’s best interests due to her mental capabilities and approved the petition. The operation was performed, although Sparkman was unaware of the true nature of the surgery. Two years later, after Sparkman married, she discovered that the sterilization explained her inability to become pregnant. Sparkman sued Judge Stump for violating her right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court held that although the approval of the petition by Judge Stump was erroneous, he had jurisdiction to consider the petition and was entitled to judicial immunity. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the judgment and concluded that Judge Stump did not have jurisdiction to approve the petition and that he did not have judicial immunity.
Question
Does a district court judge have the power to entertain and act upon the petition for sterilization, which makes him immune from damages liability even if his approval of the petition was in error?
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1977/76-1750
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/435/349/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stump_v._Sparkman
Judges Comments
SoundCloud
Justice Potter Stewart's Great Dissent - Stump v. Sparkman by ... https://soundcloud.com/californiaopencarry/justice-potter-stewarts-great-dissent-stump-v-sparkman?utm_source=soundcloud&utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=facebook
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978), is the leading United States Supreme Court decision on judicial immunity. It involved an Indiana judge who was sued by a young woman who had been sterilized without her knowledge as a minor in accordance with the judge's order. The Supreme Court held that the judge was immune from being sued for issuing the order because it was issued as a judicial function. The case has been called one of the most controversial in recent Supreme Court history.[1