5th Circuit Rules Texas Judicial Officer Has Immunity in Political Retaliation Lawsuit
August 6, 2025
On August 1, 2025, a divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that a Texas justice of the peace in Loving County, the least populous county in the U.S., enjoys judicial immunity from a lawsuit alleging political retaliation. The plaintiffs, residents of Loving County, claimed they were arrested after reporting for jury duty in retaliation for their political activities, specifically for supporting a rival candidate in a 2020 election. The court held that the justice of the peace was performing a judicial act during the venire stage of jury selection, which involves discretionary judgment, thereby granting absolute judicial immunity. This decision, reported by Law.com, underscores the broad protections afforded to judicial officers under U.S. law when performing judicial functions, even in contentious cases.
Case Background
The lawsuit originated in Loving County, Texas, where the plaintiffs alleged that local officials, including the justice of the peace, orchestrated their arrests as political retaliation. The arrests occurred after the plaintiffs reported for jury duty, a process overseen by the justice of the peace during the venire stage, where prospective jurors are questioned, offer excuses, or request exemptions. The plaintiffs claimed the arrests violated their First Amendment rights, arguing that the justice of the peace and other officials targeted them for supporting a candidate opposing the county’s political establishment in the 2020 election.
The Fifth Circuit’s majority opinion emphasized that the justice of the peace’s actions during jury selection constituted a “judicial act” requiring discretionary judgment, such as assessing juror qualifications and exemptions. Citing Stump v. Sparkman (1978), the court noted that judges have absolute immunity from civil liability for judicial acts unless there is a “clear absence of all jurisdiction.” The court found no such absence, as the justice of the peace was acting within their authority under Texas law to manage jury proceedings. The ruling dismissed the claims against the judicial officer, though it did not address potential liability for other officials, such as the sheriff or county attorney, who may lack similar immunity.
Judicial Immunity Framework
Judicial immunity, rooted in common law and affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, shields judges from civil lawsuits for actions taken in their judicial capacity, even if those actions are erroneous, illegal, or malicious, provided they do not exceed jurisdictional bounds. In Stump v. Sparkman, the Supreme Court upheld immunity for a judge who approved a sterilization petition, finding it a judicial act within the court’s general jurisdiction. Similarly, the Fifth Circuit’s ruling hinged on the nature of the justice of the peace’s actions during the venire stage, which involved discretionary decisions integral to the judicial process.
The dissent, however, argued that the arrests suggested a potential abuse of judicial authority, possibly falling outside the scope of protected judicial acts. The minority opinion, led by Judge Stephen A. Higginson, contended that the allegations of political retaliation warranted further scrutiny to determine if the justice of the peace’s actions were truly judicial or constituted investigative or administrative conduct, which may not be immune. This split reflects ongoing debates about the limits of judicial immunity, particularly in cases involving allegations of bad faith or political motives.
Broader Context and Related Cases
The Fifth Circuit’s decision aligns with its history of grappling with immunity doctrines in retaliation lawsuits:
- Villarreal v. City of Laredo (2025): The court rejected qualified immunity for Laredo police officers who arrested journalist Priscilla Villarreal for her reporting, citing a violation of her First Amendment rights. However, the majority upheld immunity for some officials, drawing criticism from dissenters like Judge Higginson, who argued for remand to assess retaliatory intent.
- Wooten v. Roach (2020): The Fifth Circuit granted prosecutorial immunity to three of four prosecutors accused of retaliating against a judge for unseating an incumbent, but allowed claims against one prosecutor for investigative actions, which are not covered by absolute immunity.
- McMurry v. Weaver (2025): The court denied qualified immunity to a Texas officer who unlawfully seized a child, emphasizing that deliberate constitutional violations do not warrant immunity, especially outside split-second decisions.
These cases highlight the distinction between absolute judicial immunity, which broadly protects judges, and qualified immunity, which applies to other officials like police or prosecutors but requires that the violated right was not “clearly established.” The Loving County ruling reinforces that judicial acts, even if controversial, are typically shielded, unlike investigative or administrative actions, which may expose officials to liability.
Implications and Criticism
The ruling strengthens protections for judicial officers in small jurisdictions like Loving County, where political tensions can blur the lines between judicial and administrative roles. Critics, including the dissenting judges, argue that absolute immunity risks shielding misconduct, particularly in politically charged cases where judicial authority may be misused to suppress dissent. The Institute for Justice, which has challenged immunity doctrines, notes that such protections can hinder accountability for constitutional violations, citing cases like Gonzalez v. Trevino (2024), where the Supreme Court eased the burden for proving First Amendment retaliation but upheld immunity in some contexts.
The decision also contrasts with broader concerns about the Fifth Circuit’s conservative bent, as noted by the Center for American Progress, which accuses the court of enabling right-wing policy goals through immunity rulings and judge-shopping. In this case, the majority’s focus on judicial immunity avoided engaging with the plaintiffs’ political retaliation claims, potentially sidestepping deeper constitutional questions.
Conclusion
The Fifth Circuit’s August 1, 2025, ruling granting judicial immunity to a Loving County justice of the peace underscores the robust protections afforded to judges performing judicial acts, even amid allegations of political retaliation. While the decision aligns with precedents like Stump v. Sparkman, the dissent highlights tensions over accountability in cases of alleged misconduct. As debates over judicial and qualified immunity continue, this case illustrates the challenges of balancing official discretion with the need to address potential abuses of power, particularly in politically charged local disputes.
Sources: Law.com, Justia, Institute for Justice, Center for American Progress, Reason, SCOTUSblog