Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Demise Of Habeas Corpus And The Rise Of Qualified Immunity: The Court's Ever Increasing Limitations On The Development And Enforcement Of Constitutional Rights And Some Particularly Unfortunate Consequences, Stephen R. Reinhardt
Michigan Law Review
The collapse of habeas corpus as a remedy for even the most glaring of constitutional violations ranks among the greater wrongs of our legal era. Once hailed as the Great Writ, and still feted with all the standard rhetorical flourishes, habeas corpus has been transformed over the past two decades from a vital guarantor of liberty into an instrument for ratifying the power of state courts to disregard the protections of the Constitution. Along with so many other judicial tools meant to safeguard the powerless, enforce constitutional rights, and hold the government accountable, habeas has been slowly eroded by a …
The Case Against Section 1983 Immunity For Witnesses Who Conspire With A State Official To Present Perjured Testimony, Jennifer S. Zbytowski
The Case Against Section 1983 Immunity For Witnesses Who Conspire With A State Official To Present Perjured Testimony, Jennifer S. Zbytowski
Michigan Law Review
This Note argues that witnesses who conspire with a state official to present perjured testimony at a judicial proceeding should not have absolute immunity from a section 1983 suit for damages. Part I provides background information on section 1983 and explains why a witness-state conspiracy satisfies the requirements of a section 1983 cause of action. Part I also summarizes the Supreme Court's doctrinal approach to section 1983 immunity. Finally, Part I examines two Supreme Court cases which are relevant to the issue of immunity for witness conspirators: Briscoe v. LaHue, and Malley v. Briggs. Part II applies the …
A Board Does Not A Bench Make: Denying Quasi-Judicial Immunity To Parole Board Members In Section 1983 Damages Actions, Julio A. Thompson
A Board Does Not A Bench Make: Denying Quasi-Judicial Immunity To Parole Board Members In Section 1983 Damages Actions, Julio A. Thompson
Michigan Law Review
This Note argues that neither the majority nor the minority approach is realistic. A thorough examination of the parole process and section 1983 litigation will show that a third approach is more appropriate - that parole board members are entitled only to qualified immunity for all actions taken within the scope of their official duties. Part I argues that parole board members should not enjoy absolute, quasi-judicial immunity because the parole board decisionmaking process is not "functionally comparable" to judicial decisionmaking. The differences in procedure, political accountability, training, and background lead to two very different systems. Part II shows that …