503:
process. Here a juvenile was ordered sterilized without the taking of the slightest steps to ensure that her rights were protected. Not only was the plaintiff not given representation, she was not even told what was happening to her. She was afforded no opportunity to contest the validity of her mother's allegations or to have a higher court examine whether the substance of those allegations, even if true, warranted her sterilization. Finally, the petition and order were never filed in court. This kind of purported justice does not fall within the categories of cases at law or in equity.
34:
525:, writing for the five-member majority, disagreed with the determination by the Court of Appeals that there was a "clear absence of all jurisdiction" for Judge Stump to consider Ora McFarlin's petition, noting that Indiana law gave circuit courts "original exclusive jurisdiction in all cases at law and in equity" and jurisdiction over "all other causes, matters and proceedings where exclusive jurisdiction thereof is not conferred by law upon some other court, board or officer." Justice White acknowledged an intervening decision of the
647:
551:, 13 Wall., at 357, where it stated "his erroneous manner in which jurisdiction was exercised, however it may have affected the validity of the act, did not make it any less a judicial act; nor did it render the defendant liable to answer in damages for it at the suit of the plaintiff, as though the court had proceeded without having any jurisdiction whatever....
498:
Court of
Appeals found no basis in statutory or common law for a court to order the sterilization of a minor child simply upon a parent's petition. It also held that Stump's action could not be justified as a valid exercise of the power of courts to fashion new common law. Concluding, Judge Swygert wrote:
502:
Even if defendant Stump had not been foreclosed under the
Indiana statutory scheme from fashioning a new common law remedy in this case, we would still find his action to be an illegitimate exercise of his common law power because of his failure to comply with elementary principles of procedural due
571:
In the view of the majority, Judge Stump's action passed this test. Even if his decision was erroneous, it was within his jurisdiction to consider Ora McFarlin's petition. Moreover, the parties dealt with Judge Stump in his capacity as a judge, not as a private individual. Accordingly, he could not
529:
in 1975 that held that a parent has no common-law right to have a minor child sterilized; but he reasoned that when presented with a petition like Ora McFarlin's, an
Indiana circuit judge "should deny it on its merits rather than dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction." Noting that Judge Swygert found
601:
Not one of the considerations...summarized in the
Pierson opinion was present here. There was no "case," controversial or otherwise. There were no litigants. There was and could be no appeal. And there was not even the pretext of principled decision making. The total absence of any of these normal
589:
entered a vigorous dissent. Agreeing that judges of general jurisdiction enjoy absolute immunity for their judicial acts, he wrote, "...what Judge Stump did...was beyond the pale of anything that could sensibly be called a judicial act." Stating that it was "factually untrue" that what Judge Stump
497:
of a case and that it is not available when he acts in "clear absence of all jurisdiction." Although
Indiana statute law permitted the sterilization of institutionalized persons under certain circumstances, it provided for the right to notice, the opportunity to defend and the right to appeal. The
377:
Circuit Court asking to have her 15-year-old daughter, Linda
Spitler, surgically sterilized. The petition alleged that the daughter was "somewhat retarded", was associating with "older youth and young men" and that it would be in the daughter's best interest to undergo a tubal ligation "to prevent
294:
without her knowledge as a minor in accordance with the judge's order. The
Supreme Court held that the judge was immune from being sued for issuing the order because it was issued as a judicial function. The case has been called one of the most controversial in recent Supreme Court history.
620:
Underlying the
Bradley immunity...is the notion that private rights can be sacrificed in some degree to the achievement of the greater public good deriving from a completely independent judiciary, because there exist alternative forums and methods for vindicating those rights.
593:
Justice
Stewart also denounced it as "legally unsound" to rule that Judge Stump had acted in a "judicial capacity". "A judge is not free, like a loose cannon", he wrote, "to inflict indiscriminate damage whenever he announces that he is acting in his judicial capacity."
401:
On July 15, Linda
Spitler entered DeKalb Memorial Hospital, just four blocks from her home. She was told that she was to have her appendix removed. The next day a tubal ligation was performed on her by Dr. John H. Hines, assisted by Dr. Harry M. Covell, and
790:
42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) permits recovery of damages upon proof of a conspiracy "for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the
453:, which was necessary to the federal claims, was Judge Stump's approval of the petition and that he was "clothed with absolute judicial immunity", thereby cutting off the claims against the other defendants as well. The Sparkmans appealed to the
615:
filed a separate dissent that emphasized what he called "...the central feature of this case - Judge Stump's preclusion of any possibility for the vindication of respondents' rights elsewhere in the judicial system." Continuing, he wrote:
662:
laws still on the books in Indiana in 1971, she was invited to unveil a state historic marker describing the original law on April 12, 2007, in Indianapolis. Indiana repealed all laws concerning sterilization of the mentally ill in 1974.
141:
A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority. He will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the clear absence of all
542:
Addressing Judge Swygert's assertion that even if Judge Stump had jurisdiction he was deprived of immunity because of his failure to observe elementary principles of procedural due process, Justice White countered:
464:
Judicial immunity is the principle in which "a judge complete protection from personal liability for exercising judicial functions". Applying the doctrine of judicial immunity adopted by the U. S. Supreme Court in
624:
But where a judicial officer acts in a manner that precludes all resort to appellate or other judicial remedies that otherwise would be available, the underlying assumption of the Bradley doctrine is inoperative.
417:
for alleged deprivation of Linda Sparkman's civil rights against Ora McFarlin, her attorney, Judge Stump, the doctors who performed the operation and the hospital where it was performed. Leo Sparkman asserted a
266:
547:
A judge is absolutely immune from liability for his judicial acts even if his exercise of authority is flawed by the commission of grave procedural errors. The Court made this point clear in
409:
In 1973, Linda Spitler married Leo Sparkman. Failing to become pregnant, she learned from Hines in 1975 that she had been sterilized. The Sparkmans then brought an action for damages under
590:
did was an act "normally performed by a judge", he wrote "...there is no reason to believe that such an act has ever been performed by any other Indiana judge, either before or since."
739:
Kessler, Laura T. (March 30, 2014). "'A Sordid Case': Stump v. Sparkman, Judicial Immunity, and the Other Side of Reproductive Rights". Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.
422:
claim under state law for loss of potential fatherhood. Linda Sparkman also asserted pendent state claims for assault and battery and medical malpractice. The case was filed in the
855:
1252:
394:
was appointed to represent her interest, and no hearing was held. Neither the petition nor the order was filed with the clerk of the circuit court, nor did the order cite any
1089:
357:" when he ordered the sterilization. Finally, in 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-3 decision, reversed the Court of Appeals, announcing a test for deciding when
423:
104:
658:
2007 marked the centennial of the 1907 Indiana sterilization law, the first of its kind in the world. Although Linda Sparkman was not sterilized under any of the
414:
342:, she learned that she had been sterilized during the 1971 operation. The daughter and her husband sued the judge and others associated with the sterilization in
1302:
458:
117:
1149:
877:
711:
75:
1257:
847:
560:
The majority opinion went on to decide that the factors determining whether an act by a judge is a judicial act "relate to the nature of the act itself":
1277:
467:
304:
1262:
1247:
1292:
291:
1282:
1287:
819:
1085:
534:...t is more significant that there was no Indiana statute and no case law in 1971 prohibiting a circuit court, a court of
353:
reversed the decision, holding that the judge had lost his immunity because he failed to observe "elementary principles of
779:
279:
38:
1297:
1132:
1117:
602:
attributes of a judicial proceeding convinces me that the conduct complained of in this case was not a judicial act.
1068:
1267:
454:
131:
Rehearing Denied June 5, 1978, 436 U.S. 951, 98 S.Ct. 2862, 56 L.Ed.2d 795 Remand 601 F.2nd 261 (7th Cir. 1979)
1196:
902:
343:
113:
1120:
contains Linda Sparkman's recollections of her childhood, although it does not directly address this case.
494:
269:
DeKalb County Court House, Auburn, Indiana. The chambers of the Circuit Court judge are at upper left.
612:
765:
1272:
1178:
920:
691:
526:
1160:
1086:“A Sordid Case”: Stump v. Sparkman, Judicial Immunity, and the Other Side of Reproductive Rights
716:
634:
The decision has been called one of the most controversial decisions in Supreme Court history.
478:
374:
165:
744:
373:, through her attorney Warren G. Sunday, presented a petition to Judge Harold D. Stump of the
1153:
881:
851:
752:
597:
Concluding, Justice Stewart argued that the majority misapplied the law of the Pierson case:
67:
535:
419:
8:
1094:
706:
696:
680:
651:
Linda Sparkman views the 1907 Indiana Eugenics Law marker in Indianapolis, April 12, 2007
482:
197:
82:
410:
257:
884:
572:
be held liable for the consequences of his actions, even if they were arguably tragic.
332:
312:
859:
1128:
1113:
740:
701:
686:
446:
388:
358:
315:". The petition was granted the same day that it was filed. The judge did not hold a
283:
209:
201:
185:
403:
350:
157:
349:
The district court found that the judge was immune from suit. The Seventh Circuit
70:
1187:
486:
387:
the same day that he received the petition. The daughter had no notice of it. No
370:
650:
872:
586:
473:
320:
308:
265:
189:
173:
507:
Stump and his co-defendants appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted
1241:
1232:
1039:
530:
no Indiana law that authorized Judge Stump's action, Justice White observed:
316:
820:"Human Testing, the Eugenics Movement, and IRBs | Learn Science at Scitable"
311:
performed on her 15-year-old daughter, who the mother alleged was "somewhat
123:
Certiorari granted October 3, 1977, 434 U.S. 815, 98 S.Ct. 51, 54 L.Ed.2d 70
673:
490:
1214:
1169:
522:
450:
354:
177:
509:
86:
1205:
659:
538:, from considering a petition of the type presented to Judge Stump.
383:
339:
1222:
567:
whether the parties dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity.
247:
Brennan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
1233:
Indiana Eugenics Law historical marker dedication, April 12, 2007
1040:
Indiana Eugenics Law historical marker dedication, April 12, 2007
778:
Full text of the petition and order is at 435 U.S. 349, 352-353,
395:
328:
287:
1227:
327:
to protect the daughter's interests. The daughter underwent the
324:
33:
57:
Harold D. Stump, et al. v. Linda Kay Sparkman and Leo Sparkman
564:
whether it is a function normally performed by a judge; and
361:
should apply and holding that the judge could not be sued.
110:
489:, found that immunity is available only when a judge has
1127:, Bethesda, MD: National Press, 1987, pp. 247–257.
424:
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana
338:
The daughter married two years later. Failing to become
331:
a week later, having been told that she was to have her
1071:
Stump v. Sparkman and the History of Judicial Immunity,
1253:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court
1079:
Stump v. Sparkman: The Doctrine of Judicial Impunity,
712:
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 435
555:
226:
White, joined by Burger, Blackmun, Rehnquist, Stevens
1125:
Black Mondays: Worst Decisions of the Supreme Court
1098:. Volume 74, Issue 4, Article 5. p. 833-920.
471:in 1871 and held applicable to § 1983 actions in
290:judge who was sued by a young woman who had been
16:1978 U.S. Supreme Court case on judicial immunity
1239:
1223:Indiana Eugenics: History and Legacy, 1907-2007
1108:Jamie Renae Coleman and Paula Bateman Headley,
1006:, 435 U.S. at 369-70 (Stewart, J., dissenting).
1050:Public Law No. 60, Indiana Acts, 1974, p. 262.
611:Joining in Justice Stewart's opinion, Justice
1303:Compulsory sterilization in the United States
987:
985:
983:
970:
968:
943:
941:
994:, 435 U.S. at 368 (Stewart, J., dissenting).
977:, 435 U.S. at 366 (Stewart, J., dissenting).
580:
449:, dismissed the case, holding that the only
1030:, 435 U.S. at 371 (Powell, J., dissenting).
1018:, 435 U.S. at 370 (Powell, J., dissenting).
606:
1278:United States reproductive rights case law
1112:, Bloomington, Indiana: AuthorHouse, 2003
980:
965:
938:
429:Linda Sparkman later changed her name to
369:On July 9, 1971, Ora Spitler McFarlin of
1258:United States children's rights case law
264:
738:
381:Judge Stump signed the requested order
1240:
1062:
398:authority for the action being taken.
307:granted a mother's petition to have a
278:, 435 U.S. 349 (1978), is the leading
21:1978 United States Supreme Court case
734:
732:
513:and reversed the Court of Appeals.
234:Stewart, joined by Marshall, Powell
13:
1057:
39:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
1314:
1263:United States disability case law
1248:United States Supreme Court cases
1156:349 (1978) is available from:
1138:
812:
729:
481:, writing for himself and Judges
437:, with her friend Paula Headley.
1293:United States judiciary case law
645:
461:, which reversed the dismissal.
32:
1044:
1033:
1021:
1009:
997:
953:
926:
908:
440:
1283:1978 in United States case law
923: (Ind. Ct. App. 1975).
905:, 176 (7th Cir. 1977).
890:
865:
837:
803:
794:
784:
772:
575:
516:
1:
1288:Eugenics in the United States
1081:64 Virginia L.Rev. 833 (1978)
722:
433:and co-authored a 2003 book,
364:
800:Civ.No. F-75-129 (N.D. Ind.)
378:unfortunate circumstances."
7:
1073:Duke L.J. 879, No. 5 (1980)
666:
280:United States Supreme Court
10:
1319:
1215:Oyez (oral argument audio)
445:The district court judge,
644:
639:
629:
581:Justice Stewart's dissent
256:
251:
246:
238:
230:
222:
217:
151:
146:
140:
135:
127:
99:
94:
62:
52:
45:
31:
26:
1298:Legal history of Indiana
1102:
1077:Irene Merker Rosenberg,
692:Compulsory sterilization
607:Justice Powell's dissent
556:Test of a "judicial act"
527:Indiana Court of Appeals
298:
1110:The Blanket She Carried
435:The Blanket She Carried
46:Argued January 10, 1978
1268:DeKalb County, Indiana
921:325 N.E.2d 501
760:Cite journal requires
717:Miscarriage of justice
627:
604:
553:
540:
505:
344:federal district court
270:
166:William J. Brennan Jr.
48:Decided March 28, 1978
618:
599:
545:
532:
500:
455:U.S. Court of Appeals
268:
903:552 F.2d 172
898:Sparkman v. McFarlin
536:general jurisdiction
406:Dr. John C. Harvey.
1228:Eugenics in Indiana
1197:Library of Congress
1095:Maryland Law Review
1084:Kessler, Laura T. "
1069:J. Randolph Block,
1063:Law review articles
707:Judicial misconduct
697:Judicial discretion
681:Skinner v. Oklahoma
483:Harlington Wood Jr.
431:Jamie Renae Coleman
415:42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)
198:Lewis F. Powell Jr.
81:98 S. Ct. 1099; 55
962:, 435 U.S. at 363.
950:, 435 U.S. at 359.
935:, 435 U.S. at 360.
585:Associate Justice
521:Associate Justice
271:
162:Associate Justices
103:Civ.No. F-75-129 (
1146:Stump v. Sparkman
844:Bradley v. Fisher
702:Judicial immunity
687:Absolute immunity
656:
655:
479:Luther M. Swygert
468:Bradley v. Fisher
447:Jesse E. Eschbach
359:judicial immunity
286:. It involved an
284:judicial immunity
275:Stump v. Sparkman
263:
262:
202:William Rehnquist
186:Thurgood Marshall
27:Stump v. Sparkman
1310:
1219:
1213:
1210:
1204:
1201:
1195:
1192:
1186:
1183:
1177:
1174:
1168:
1165:
1159:
1123:Joel D. Joseph,
1051:
1048:
1042:
1037:
1031:
1025:
1019:
1013:
1007:
1001:
995:
989:
978:
972:
963:
957:
951:
945:
936:
930:
924:
918:
912:
906:
900:
894:
888:
869:
863:
841:
835:
834:
832:
830:
816:
810:
807:
801:
798:
792:
788:
782:
776:
770:
769:
763:
758:
756:
748:
736:
649:
648:
637:
636:
411:42 U.S.C. § 1983
404:anesthesiologist
351:Court of Appeals
258:42 U.S.C. § 1983
158:Warren E. Burger
147:Court membership
107:. May 13, 1976)
36:
35:
24:
23:
1318:
1317:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1273:Auburn, Indiana
1238:
1237:
1217:
1211:
1208:
1202:
1199:
1193:
1190:
1184:
1181:
1175:
1172:
1166:
1163:
1157:
1141:
1105:
1065:
1060:
1058:Further reading
1055:
1054:
1049:
1045:
1038:
1034:
1026:
1022:
1014:
1010:
1002:
998:
990:
981:
973:
966:
958:
954:
946:
939:
931:
927:
914:
913:
909:
896:
895:
891:
870:
866:
842:
838:
828:
826:
818:
817:
813:
809:Kessler p. 835.
808:
804:
799:
795:
789:
785:
777:
773:
761:
759:
750:
749:
737:
730:
725:
669:
646:
632:
609:
583:
578:
558:
519:
487:William G. East
477:in 1967, Judge
459:Seventh Circuit
443:
371:Auburn, Indiana
367:
305:Harold D. Stump
303:In 1971, Judge
301:
210:John P. Stevens
200:
188:
176:
121:
90:
47:
41:
22:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1316:
1306:
1305:
1300:
1295:
1290:
1285:
1280:
1275:
1270:
1265:
1260:
1255:
1250:
1236:
1235:
1230:
1225:
1220:
1179:Google Scholar
1140:
1139:External links
1137:
1136:
1135:
1121:
1104:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1082:
1075:
1064:
1061:
1059:
1056:
1053:
1052:
1043:
1032:
1020:
1008:
996:
979:
964:
952:
937:
925:
916:A.L. v. G.H.R.
907:
889:
873:Pierson v. Ray
864:
836:
824:www.nature.com
811:
802:
793:
783:
771:
762:|journal=
727:
726:
724:
721:
720:
719:
714:
709:
704:
699:
694:
689:
684:
677:
668:
665:
654:
653:
642:
641:
640:External image
631:
628:
608:
605:
587:Potter Stewart
582:
579:
577:
574:
569:
568:
565:
557:
554:
518:
515:
495:subject-matter
474:Pierson v. Ray
442:
439:
366:
363:
309:tubal ligation
300:
297:
261:
260:
254:
253:
249:
248:
244:
243:
240:
236:
235:
232:
228:
227:
224:
220:
219:
215:
214:
213:
212:
190:Harry Blackmun
174:Potter Stewart
163:
160:
155:
149:
148:
144:
143:
138:
137:
133:
132:
129:
125:
124:
101:
97:
96:
92:
91:
80:
64:
60:
59:
54:
53:Full case name
50:
49:
43:
42:
37:
29:
28:
20:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1315:
1304:
1301:
1299:
1296:
1294:
1291:
1289:
1286:
1284:
1281:
1279:
1276:
1274:
1271:
1269:
1266:
1264:
1261:
1259:
1256:
1254:
1251:
1249:
1246:
1245:
1243:
1234:
1231:
1229:
1226:
1224:
1221:
1216:
1207:
1198:
1189:
1180:
1171:
1162:
1161:CourtListener
1155:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1142:
1134:
1133:0-915765-65-9
1130:
1126:
1122:
1119:
1118:1-4033-8119-4
1115:
1111:
1107:
1106:
1097:
1096:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1080:
1076:
1074:
1072:
1067:
1066:
1047:
1041:
1036:
1029:
1024:
1017:
1012:
1005:
1000:
993:
988:
986:
984:
976:
971:
969:
961:
956:
949:
944:
942:
934:
929:
922:
917:
911:
904:
899:
893:
886:
883:
879:
875:
874:
868:
861:
857:
853:
849:
845:
840:
825:
821:
815:
806:
797:
787:
781:
775:
767:
754:
746:
742:
735:
733:
728:
718:
715:
713:
710:
708:
705:
703:
700:
698:
695:
693:
690:
688:
685:
683:
682:
678:
676:
675:
671:
670:
664:
661:
652:
643:
638:
635:
626:
622:
617:
614:
603:
598:
595:
591:
588:
573:
566:
563:
562:
561:
552:
550:
544:
539:
537:
531:
528:
524:
514:
512:
511:
504:
499:
496:
492:
488:
484:
480:
476:
475:
470:
469:
462:
460:
456:
452:
448:
438:
436:
432:
427:
425:
421:
416:
412:
407:
405:
399:
397:
393:
392:
386:
385:
379:
376:
375:DeKalb County
372:
362:
360:
356:
352:
347:
345:
341:
336:
334:
330:
326:
323:or appoint a
322:
318:
314:
310:
306:
296:
293:
289:
285:
281:
277:
276:
267:
259:
255:
250:
245:
241:
237:
233:
229:
225:
221:
218:Case opinions
216:
211:
207:
203:
199:
195:
191:
187:
183:
179:
175:
171:
167:
164:
161:
159:
156:
154:Chief Justice
153:
152:
150:
145:
142:jurisdiction.
139:
134:
130:
126:
122:
119:
115:
112:
106:
102:
98:
93:
88:
84:
78:
77:
72:
69:
65:
61:
58:
55:
51:
44:
40:
30:
25:
19:
1145:
1124:
1109:
1093:
1078:
1070:
1046:
1035:
1027:
1023:
1015:
1011:
1003:
999:
991:
974:
959:
955:
947:
932:
928:
915:
910:
897:
892:
887: (1967).
871:
867:
862: (1871).
843:
839:
829:December 11,
827:. Retrieved
823:
814:
805:
796:
786:
774:
753:cite journal
679:
674:Buck v. Bell
672:
657:
633:
623:
619:
613:Lewis Powell
610:
600:
596:
592:
584:
570:
559:
548:
546:
541:
533:
520:
508:
506:
501:
491:jurisdiction
472:
466:
463:
451:state action
444:
441:Lower courts
434:
430:
428:
408:
400:
390:
382:
380:
368:
348:
337:
302:
282:decision on
274:
273:
272:
252:Laws applied
205:
193:
181:
169:
108:
95:Case history
74:
56:
18:
780:Footnote 1.
576:The dissent
523:Byron White
517:The holding
355:due process
319:to receive
178:Byron White
1242:Categories
1206:OpenJurist
723:References
510:certiorari
365:Background
292:sterilized
128:Subsequent
87:U.S. LEXIS
85:331; 1978
493:over the
396:statutory
389:guardian
335:removed.
83:L. Ed. 2d
63:Citations
1144:Text of
667:See also
660:eugenics
457:for the
391:ad litem
384:ex parte
340:pregnant
333:appendix
321:evidence
313:retarded
223:Majority
105:N.D. Ind
1170:Findlaw
1090:Archive
745:2417972
549:Bradley
420:pendent
329:surgery
317:hearing
288:Indiana
239:Dissent
231:Dissent
136:Holding
120:. 1977)
118:7th Cir
1218:
1212:
1209:
1203:
1200:
1194:
1191:
1188:Justia
1185:
1182:
1176:
1173:
1167:
1164:
1158:
1131:
1116:
919:,
901:,
876:,
858:)
846:,
791:laws."
743:
630:Legacy
485:, and
325:lawyer
242:Powell
208:
206:·
204:
196:
194:·
192:
184:
182:·
180:
172:
170:·
168:
1152:
1103:Books
1028:Stump
1016:Stump
1004:Stump
992:Stump
975:Stump
960:Stump
948:Stump
933:Stump
880:
856:Wall.
850:
299:Facts
100:Prior
1154:U.S.
1129:ISBN
1114:ISBN
882:U.S.
854:(13
852:U.S.
831:2020
766:help
741:SSRN
413:and
111:F.2d
109:552
76:more
68:U.S.
66:435
1150:435
1092:).
1088:" (
885:547
878:386
860:335
114:172
71:349
1244::
1148:,
982:^
967:^
940:^
848:80
822:.
757::
755:}}
751:{{
731:^
426:.
346:.
89:74
833:.
768:)
764:(
747:.
116:(
79:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
