Antonin Scalia

Name: Burns v. Reed — Opinion of the Court
Author: Antonin Scalia

Summary

“Burns v. Reed — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Antonin Scalia. It explores elements such as absolute immunity, Imbler and search warrant.

Quotes from Burns v. Reed — Opinion of the Court (Antonin Scalia)

Antonin Scalia, Burns v. Reed — Opinion of the Court

“ I agree that a prosecutor has absolute immunity for eliciting false statements in a judicial hearing, and that he has only qualified immunity for giving legal advice to police officers. I write separately because I think petitioner also makes a claim, which we ought to consider, that a constitutional violation occurred in the prosecutor's initiation of the search warrant proceeding. My understanding of the common-law practice, which governs whether absolute immunity exists under § 1983, is that this prosecutorial action would have enjoyed only qualified immunity. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Antonin Scalia, Burns v. Reed — Opinion of the Court

“ It could be argued, therefore, that a prosecutor's role in seeking a search warrant is akin to a prosecutor's role in seeking an indictment, and thus that Imbler § holding alone governs the present suit. But insofar as the relevant factors are concerned, this case is further from Imbler than was Malley, which denied absolute immunity to a policeman for procuring an arrest warrant. Imbler recognized absolute immunity out of a desire to protect actions "intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process." ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Antonin Scalia, Burns v. Reed — Opinion of the Court

“ In the Court's view, petitioner makes two claims: (1) that the prosecutor gave incorrect legal advice, and (2) that he elicited false or misleading testimony at the hearing. As to the first, I agree that neither traditional judicial nor defamation immunity is applicable, though (as I have said) quasi-judicial immunity is. The prosecutor may therefore claim only qualified immunity. As to the second, I agree that the traditional defamation immunity is sufficient to provide a historical basis for absolute § 1983 immunity. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Antonin Scalia, Burns v. Reed — Opinion of the Court

“ Imbler granted a prosecutor absolute immunity against a § 1983 claim that he had sought a grand jury indictment maliciously. It relied for that holding upon a common-law tradition of prosecutorial immunity that developed much later than 1871, and was not even a logical extrapolation from then-established immunities. While I would not, for the reasons stated above, employ that methodology here, [2] the holding of Imbler remains on the books, and for reasons of stare decisis I would not abandon it. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Antonin Scalia, Burns v. Reed — Opinion of the Court

“ As is evident from the foregoing catalog, judicial immunity extended not only to public officials but also to private citizens (in particular jurors and arbitrators) ; the touchstone for its applicability was performance of the function of resolving disputes between parties, or of authoritatively adjudicating private rights. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Antonin Scalia, Burns v. Reed — Opinion of the Court

“ The common law extended qualified immunity to public officials quite liberally, and courts will not often have occasion to go further. Absolute immunity, however, was exceedingly rare, so that the scope for judicial rewriting of § 1983 in that respect is broad indeed.↑ Even if it were applied, respondent would not prevail, since there is not even any post-1871 tradition to support prosecutorial immunity in the obtaining of search warrants. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Antonin Scalia, Burns v. Reed — Opinion of the Court

“ If 'an official was accorded immunity from tort actions at common law when the Civil Rights Act was enacted in 1871, the Court next considers whether § 1983's history or purposes nonetheless counsel against recognizing the same immunity in § 1983 actions.' " Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 339-340, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1095, 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986) , quoting Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914, 920, 104 S.Ct. 2820, 2824, 81 L.Ed.2d 758 (1984) .
Where we have found that a tradition of absolute immunity did not exist as of 1871, we have refused to grant such immunity under § 1983. See Malley, supra ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Antonin Scalia, Burns v. Reed — Opinion of the Court

“ As to that portion of the case, a directed verdict on immunity grounds should not have been granted.
* On its face, § 1983 makes liable "every person" who deprives another of civil rights under color of state law. ”

Antonin Scalia

Summary

Quotes from Burns v. Reed — Opinion of the Court (Antonin Scalia)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature