Skip to main content

Search

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 8.1.14 Administrative Proceedings

In the context of a dispute involving maritime law, the Supreme Court held that states enjoy sovereign immunity from federal adjudicative administrative hearings initiated and prosecuted by private parties, so that a federal agency may not adjudicate a dispute between a private party and a nonconsenting state.4044 This may affect federal whistle-blower statutes that provide for administrative hearings.4045 However, the bar of sovereign immunity in that situation can be overcome if the federa

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 8.2.2 Judicial Immunity

The Supreme Court held in Stump v. Sparkman that judges have absolute immunity from Section 1983 damage actions for their “judicial” acts.4052 The Court permitted liability only for acts not taken in the judge’s judicial capacity or for judicial acts taken “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.”4053 Drawing from the common-law immunity of judges, the Court held that judicial immunity protects judges even when their judicial acts:

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 8.2.3 Prosecutorial Immunity

Prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from damage liability for the initiation and prosecution of a criminal case.4090 The Supreme Court, relying heavily on considerations of policy, reasoned that initiating a prosecution and presenting a case are activities that are “intimately associated with the judicial phase of criminal process, and thus were functions to which the reasons for absolute immunity apply with full force.”4091

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 8.2.4 Witness Immunity

With the exception of complaining witnesses who sign affidavits seeking the issuance of search or arrest warrants, witnesses in judicial proceedings are absolutely immune from suit arising from their testimony.4113 This absolute immunity extends to suits arising from the witness’s grand jury testimony.4114 Though often phrased as witness immunity, the immunity can best be understood as an incident of judicial immunity.

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 8.2.7 Clearly Established Law

A constitutional right is clearly established when its contours are “sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”4154 Although the “violative nature of the particular conduct” must be clearly established, there is no requirement for a case directly on point.4155 Rather, existing precedent need only “have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.”4156 Such p

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 8.2.8 Qualified Immunity, Intentional Discrimination, and Retaliation

Conventional claims of unlawful discrimination and retaliation rest upon conduct whose legality depends upon the motive for—not the character of--the conduct. To wit, the Constitution does not prohibit firing public employees, but it does prohibit firing them because of a protected characteristic (e.g., race, sex, age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, etc.) or in retaliation for protected speech.

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 8.2.9 Qualified Immunity Practice and Procedure

Qualified immunity protects public officials from the burden of litigation as well as from judgments.4182 Therefore, courts are instructed to resolve the issue early, before discovery if possible.4183 Because defendants are virtually certain to raise qualified immunity, either through a motion to dismiss or answer or motion for summary judgment, you must anticipate it in drafting the complaint with the plausibility pleading requirements of Iqbal in mind.

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 3.1.9 Actual and Imminent Injury

Litigation, especially against government defendants, may involve plaintiffs faced with a risk of threatened injury. Once the plaintiff has asserted a cognizable injury, the Supreme Court has long cautioned that the injury in fact must be “actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.”697 Our discussion of non-economic injuries above describes the Court’s approach to this requirement of standing in several of the earlier cases.

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 3.4.1 Overview

The Supreme Court has identified “two main purposes” underlying exhaustion of administrative remedies. First, “exhaustion protects ‘administrative agency authority,’” by giving the agency “‘an opportunity to correct its own mistakes’” before it is “‘haled into federal court’” and further discouraging “‘disregard of [the agency’s] procedures.’” Second, “exhaustion promotes efficiency,” according to the Court.1124

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 1.2.6 Administrative Advocacy

Administrative advocacy can take a variety of forms in connection with agency adjudication, rule-making and investigation.26 Numerous federal and state benefit programs have procedures for the administrative appeal of adverse decisions. The advocate should evaluate whether these procedures comport with principles of due process and determine whether the administrative appeal is a mandatory or permissive prerequisite to judicial review.

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 3.1.8 Procedural Injury

The Supreme Court has addressed an additional form of injury—other than economic, recreational, and aesthetic injury—of potential value to legal aid attorneys. In Defenders of Wildlife, plaintiffs sought standing on the ground that the statute in question created a procedural right in the form of interagency consultation that was allegedly violated.

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 5.1.3 Did Congress intend the law to so directly benefit the plaintiff, such that those in his or her place are the “unmistakable focus” of the statute?

The seesaw battle between shifting Supreme Court majorities over what constitutes an enforceable right led to a greater focus on the relationship between the aim of the statute and its effect on the plaintiff. As formulated by Wilder, even if a statute imposes binding obligations on the state which are capable of judicial enforcement, Section 1983 cannot be invoked unless Congress intended the law to directly benefit the plaintiff. However, this only begins the inquiry.

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 3.4.0 Exhaustion of Judicial or Administrative Remedies

Section 3.4 updated 2017 by Jeffrey S. Gutman, 2023 by Carmela Huang

This Section discusses the circumstances under which a prospective federal court plaintiff may be required to exhaust judicial or administrative remedies before filing an action in federal court, and the preclusion implications of having such remedies available or pursuing such remedies when they are not statutorily mandated.