Pierson v. Ray

Supreme Court of the United States · 1967 · Torts

TortsCivil RightsFalse ArrestJudicial ImmunityPolice Immunity42 U.S.C. § 1983judicial immunitygood faith

Facts

Fifteen Episcopal clergymen, white and Negro, went to a Jackson, Mississippi bus terminal during a prayer pilgrimage and attempted to use facilities marked for whites only. They peacefully entered the waiting room and sought to enter the restaurant, but police officers ordered them to move on and then arrested them under a Mississippi breach-of-the-peace statute after they refused. They were convicted by a municipal police justice, but on appeal one obtained a directed verdict and the remaining prosecutions were dropped. In their later civil action, the evidence showed the ministers expected possible arrest, while the parties disputed whether any hostile crowd existed and whether the arrests were made to preserve segregation or to prevent threatened violence.

Issue

Whether a local judge is liable for damages under § 1983 for convictions entered within his judicial role; whether police officers sued under § 1983 for unconstitutional arrest may assert a defense of good faith and probable cause when acting under a statute not yet held unconstitutional; and whether plaintiffs' expectation of illegal arrest bars recovery as consent to the arrest.

Rule

A judge is immune from damages liability under § 1983 for acts committed within his judicial jurisdiction. Police officers sued under § 1983 for unconstitutional arrest may assert the defense of good faith and probable cause, including when acting under a statute they reasonably believed valid. A plaintiff does not consent to an illegal arrest merely by anticipating it while peacefully exercising a legal right.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Tulsa, municipal judge Aaron Mills presided over a misdemeanor hearing and entered a conviction against Lena Ortiz for violating a city ordinance later held unconstitutional as applied to her conduct. After the conviction was vacated on appeal, Lena sued Judge Mills for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging only that he wrongly found her guilty from the bench.

Is Judge Mills likely liable for damages under § 1983?

Explanation. The majority held that § 1983 did not abolish the settled common-law immunity of judges for acts within their judicial role or jurisdiction. Entering judgment in a case before the court is paradigmatically judicial. The later invalidation of the conviction does not defeat immunity. (Derived from Pierson v. Ray (n.d.).)