Stump v. Sparkman

Supreme Court of the United States · 1978 · Federal Courts

435 U.S. 349 (1978)

Updated August 1, 2026

Federal Courtsjudicial immunitySection 1983absolute immunitysubject-matter jurisdictionclear absence of all jurisdictionjudicial actsgeneral jurisdiction courts

Facts

Linda Spitler Sparkman's mother presented Judge Harold D. Stump, an Indiana circuit court judge, with a petition seeking approval for a tubal ligation on Linda, then age 15, alleging that Linda was somewhat retarded and had been associating with older youths or young men. Judge Stump signed the petition the same day as "Judge, DeKalb Circuit Court," approving the procedure. Linda was later taken to a hospital under the belief that she was having her appendix removed, but a tubal ligation was performed instead. After later discovering she had been sterilized, Linda and her husband sued under § 1983, claiming constitutional violations based on the judge's approval.

Issue

Whether Judge Stump was absolutely immune from damages liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for approving the petition authorizing the minor's sterilization. More specifically, the question was whether he acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction or whether his approval was not a judicial act.

Rule

A judge is absolutely immune from civil damages liability for judicial acts, even if the acts are erroneous, malicious, in excess of authority, or procedurally flawed, unless the judge acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. Whether an act is judicial depends on the nature of the act, including whether it is a function normally performed by a judge, and on whether the parties dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity.

🔒

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 Ohio, Judge Elena Ruiz sits on the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, a court with broad original jurisdiction over civil and criminal matters unless exclusive authority is assigned elsewhere. She signs an ex parte order authorizing a guardian to transfer a minor's settlement funds into a restrictive trust, but she does so without notice to the minor and without appointing separate counsel.

In a later § 1983 damages action by the now-adult minor, is Judge Ruiz most likely immune?

Explanation. A judge is absolutely immune from damages for judicial acts unless she acted in the clear absence of all subject-matter jurisdiction. The majority held that grave procedural errors—including ex parte handling, lack of notice, and lack of formal protections—do not strip immunity if the judge had jurisdiction and the act was judicial. Approving a petition regarding a minor's affairs is the type of function normally performed by a judge, so immunity applies here.