In a case that could set a new precedent in the rarely unpierced shield of immunity enjoyed by judges, a West Virginia man has won approval to sue a family court judge over an unusual search and seizure she conducted of his home in a divorce case she was presiding over.
Raleigh County Judge Louise Goldston is asking the 4th Circuit of Appeals to dismiss the suit on the basis that she has judicial immunity as a judge.
However, two courts have already denied Goldston immunity, with one court concluding her actions were unconstitutional and the other court concluding she acted outside of her authority.
Both rulings were unusual with a long history of courts denying countless citizen lawsuits filed against judges around the United States for alleged wrongdoings, some seemingly far greater than Goldston’s act.
In a Nov. 14 brief opposing Goldston’s appeal, lawyers for Matthew Gibson laid further groundwork to undo the long-standing implied doctrine, arguing that Goldston should not be entitled to immunity because she exercised what would be considered executive powers and not judicial powers.
“Judicial immunity does not, cannot, and should not, protect judges who blatantly ignore the separation of powers like Judge Goldston did here,” John Bryan, Gibson’s attorney wrote, in the appellant brief.
Victoria Clark, an attorney for Institute Justice that helped craft the brief challenging Goldston’s immunity, told The Epoch Times that Goldston assumed the role of both judge and police officer when she physically went to Gibson’s home and conducted a search of it. She did not have a warrant.
Goldston can be heard on the video replying “oh yeah I will.”
Clark said she was most appalled by that comment by Goldston because she was basically saying I have so much I can violate your constitutional rights.
“She’s basically saying I don’t care about these important legal restraints, I’m going to do this anyway—that is the most shocking moment for me,” she said.
According to court records, once Goldston realized the bailiff was filming the search, she told him to stop. She also threatened to arrest Gibson when he tried to videotape the search, according to court documents.
Goldston, who admitted she routinely goes to homes and conducts searches in divorce cases, was slapped on the wrist with a $1,000 find from a state review board that handles complaints against judges. However, Goldston lost her bid to use her immunity to block her immunity from both a state and federal court.
Clark believes the outcome of the case could set new precedents in the blanket immunity judges “all too often” enjoy in incidents where they are clearly operating outside of the law and violating someone’s constitutional rights.
She and other legal experts on the issue say the biggest abusers of judicial immunity come from family court judges, who often ignore domestic violence and child abuse laws and force children to live with an abusive parent while punishing protective parents for objecting to such lawless orders.
Richard Ducote, a Pennsylvania attorney who speaks nationally on the issue, said immunity has basically allowed family court judges to “murder from the bench” by refusing to follow laws and due process and instead “make reckless, random custody rulings that sent children literally to their deaths.”
“It’s no different than raping someone and then claiming immunity from it all because you wear a black robe and sit on a bench,” said Ducote.
There is a growing number of cases across the United States of children being murdered after a family court judged forced them to live with an abusive parent.
Earlier this month, a jury found Michael Valva guilty of murdering his son after a family court judge gave the ex-cop full custody of the 8-year-old boy after refusing to hear any of the evidence against him.
A judge has approved a wrongful death suit filed by the boy’s mother Justyna Zubko-Valva, but only against child protection workers, ruling the judge had immunity.
Several national organizations question if immunity really exists, pointing out that Congress abolished it during the Civil War only for the Supreme Court to resurrect it decades later.
“Qualified immunity is a judicial doctrine that protects public officials from liability, even when they break the law. The doctrine has no valid legal basis, it regularly denies justice to victims whose rights have been violated, and it severely undermines official accountability,” the CATO Institute recently wrote about the issue.
In 1978, the U.S. The Supreme Court allowed a judge to assert immunity when he ordered a mildly mentally underdeveloped 15-year-old girl undergo forced sterilization based on her mother’s untried allegation her daughter was promiscuous.
The court ruled that 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.”
There is currently a pending case out of a federal appeals court in Missouri where a judge has asserted immunity after ordering two preteens to be placed in holding cells for refusing to go with their father who they accused of abusing them.
Institute Justice is currently leading a national campaign to abolish absolute immunity for judges through state by state legislation.
Clark said it will likely be months before Gibson’s lawsuit goes before a trial since Goldston has the right to appeal her immunity case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
