Tower v. Glover

Supreme Court of the United States · 1984 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsSection 1983ImmunityState Action42 U.S.C. § 1983public defenderabsolute immunitystate action

Facts

Billy Irl Glover alleged in a § 1983 action that two Oregon public defenders who had represented him at trial and on appeal conspired with state officials, including judges and the former Attorney General of Oregon, to secure his conviction. He sought punitive damages, not reversal of his conviction or compensatory damages. Petitioners conceded that if such a conspiracy with state officials were alleged, their conduct would be under color of state law. While parallel state postconviction proceedings later resulted in a finding that no conspiracy occurred, the Supreme Court addressed only whether public defenders have immunity from § 1983 liability for the intentional misconduct alleged.

Issue

Whether state public defenders are immune from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when a criminal defendant alleges they intentionally conspired with state officials to deprive him of federal constitutional rights. Also implicated was whether such alleged conspiratorial conduct qualifies as action under color of state law.

Rule

A state public defender is not immune from liability under § 1983 for intentional misconduct committed under color of state law by virtue of alleged conspiratorial action with state officials that deprives the defender's client of federal rights. In determining § 1983 immunity, courts look to the immunity historically accorded the relevant official at common law and then consider whether § 1983's history or purposes counsel against recognizing that immunity.

🔒

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 Phoenix, state-appointed defense lawyer Nina Cortez represents Devin Marks on burglary charges. Devin later files a § 1983 damages suit alleging Nina secretly agreed with the prosecutor to keep a defense witness from testifying so Devin would be convicted.

Assuming the conspiracy allegation is adequately pleaded, which is the best answer regarding Nina's threshold § 1983 arguments?

Explanation. The majority held two points relevant here. First, although a public defender ordinarily does not act under color of state law in the normal course of the defense, an otherwise private person does act under color of state law when engaged in a conspiracy with state officials to deprive someone of federal rights. Second, the Court refused to recognize immunity for public defenders sued under § 1983 for intentional misconduct carried out through such a conspiracy. Thus, if adequately alleged, both the color-of-law and immunity defenses fail.