The issue of judicial immunity had never before been considered by the U.S. Supreme Court.  Then, in 1984, when the high court finally got a shot at reviewing the well-established immunity doctrine, it voted narrowly to limit its scope.

The 5-4 ruling found judicial immunity doesn't protect judges from federal civil rights actions.  Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984).

In that case, the Supreme Court upheld the district court's order that Magistrate Gladys Pulliam of Culpepper County, VA., must pay $7,691 in attorney fees and court costs to two men she sent to jail because they could not post bail on "non-jailable" misdemeanor charges.

They sued the magistrate in federal court for alleged civil rights violations, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against her practice of jailing defendants awaiting trial for nonjailable offenses.

One plaintiff, Richmond R. Allen, was arrested in January 1980 for allegedly using abusive and insulting language, the Supreme Court opinion states.  He spent 14 days in jail awaiting trial because he couldn't post the $250 bond.

The nonjailable offense carries a maximum penalty of a $500 fine.  A jury eventually found him guilty; he was fined and released from custody, the Supreme Court opinion states.  The trial judge later reopened Allen's case and reversed the decision.

The other plaintiff, Jesse W. Nicholson, was jailed four times in two months on charges of public drunkenness, the Supreme Court opinion states.

The maximum penalty for each violation is a $100 fine; he could not be jailed, if found guilty of these offenses.  Yet Nicholson was jailed for periods of two to six days for not posting bond.

Virginia law prohibits jailing anyone arrested for a misdemeanor that could not result in jail time, the high court's opinion states.  The exceptions, which later were repealed, were for persons arrested for profanity and being drunk in public.

The district court enjoined the practice as a violation of due process and equal protection, then the plaintiffs sought attorney fees and costs from the magistrate under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C., Section 1988.  Pulliam appealed the order awarding the fees, citing judicial immunity.

In the majority decision, written by Justice Harry A. Blackmun, the Supreme Court held, "We never had had a rule of absolute judicial immunity from prospective relief, and there is no evidence that the absence of that immunity has had a chilling effect on judicial independence."

The court cited a few cases where injunctive relief was sought against a judicial officer to prevent irreparable harm.

The dissent rejected the idea judges can be held liable for attorney fees but not damages.  "The burdens of having to defend such a claim are identical in character and degree," said Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr.  His dissent was joined by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and Justices William H. Rehnquist and Sandra Day O'Connor.