User:Lovely Chrysanthemum/sandbox

Background
Judicial immunity is a type of immunity meant to protect judges from liability from their rulings and future consequences. It is an extra protection intended to allow judges to make rulings in controversial or sensitive cases without fear of being prosecuted by litigants who do not agree with their decisions. In the modern day, this type of immunity is meant to provide judges with judicial independence. In this case, judicial immunity was under question for Judge Stump who made a ruling that did not go through due process of the law which caused harm to the plaintiff. The question was whether the sterilization of Sparkman was under his purview of judicial acts.

Dissent
Justice Powell argued that, unlike Bradley, immunity was not applicable in the circumstance, especially since Judge Stump's disregard for judicial procedure (specifically lack of due process and failure to notify the recipient of her sterilization) made it impossible for an appeal to be heard.

Legacy
The case is noted as controversial due to the impact it had on judicial immunity. Its rulings granted judges absolute immunity even with evidence of wrongdoing, and in the case of Stump v. Sparkman, it ruled that Stump "possessed absolute immunity for his acts and could not be held liable for any harm they caused". Judicial immunity was ruled by the Supreme Court to be present in all acts that were judicial in nature, and that misconduct on the part of judges did not exempt them from immunity. Due to Stump v. Sparkman, lower courts also solidified the way they considered acts to be judicial in nature or not, specifically making the criteria more lenient towards judicial immunity and the judges. The criteria includes whether the act is a normal judicial function, where the events occurred, whether the controversy was about a pending case being dealt with by the judge, and whether the acts were directly tied to a confrontation with the judge. Stump v. Sparkman also affected reproductive rights and due process, especially under eugenics law in the United States of America. Some experts argue that Stump v. Sparkman gave judges the immunity to make decisions that could be considered unconstitutional. Other scholars make a case on society and its influence on court rulings and law - for example, how eugenics and sterilization was seen as a solution to unfavorable traits.