,
4 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
1. Exactly right, Catherine. Because it wasn’t appealed, it remains an opinion by a federal court judge but not an appellate court (neither the DC Circuit Court of Appeals nor the Supreme Court). What does that mean? Sorry for the Saturday morning criminal law class, but ...
2. It means that Judge Bates’s legal opinion/ruling that there is no such thing as “absolute immunity” does not bind other judges the way it would if it was an opinion from the DC Circuit Court or SCOTUS. Put another way, it is not binding precedent. HOWEVER . . .
3. Judge Bates’s opinion/ruling that “absolute immunity” is hogwash (I’m paraphrasing here), is an extremely persuasive, well-reasoned, 93-page legal opinion by a highly respected, veteran judge. Indeed, Judge Bates said that . . .
4. validating the concept of “absolute immunity” would “eviscerate Congress’s historical oversight function.” So Judge Bates’s ruling, although not binding on other judges, should and, IMO, would be used by other judges who might take up the issue as an important guide.
