Pottawattamie Dropped, Absolute Immunity for Prosecutors Lives On

Yesterday we learned that the parties in Pottawattamie County v. McGhee, which was argued before the Supreme Court on Nov. 4 and posed a challenge to the court-created doctrine of “absolute prosecutorial immunity,” settled the case and agreed to have the Court dismiss it.

Pottwattamie concerned two African-American men, Terry Harrington and Curtis McGhee, who each spent 25 years in prison for the 1977 murder of a white man before their convictions were overturned by the Iowa Supreme Court following the revelation that Pottawattamie County prosecutors had fabricated evidence against them. Harrington and McGhee then brought a civil rights action against the prosecutors, which made its way to the Supreme Court after the 8th Circuit ruled in favor of the two wrongly convicted men that the prosecutors did not have absolute immunity from liability for their misconduct.  As reported by SCOTUSBlog, the settlement of the case involves a total payment of $12 million to Harrington and McGhee.

More details about this case, and its implications for constitutional text and history, are available here.  As we’ve discussed, the doctrine of absolute prosecutorial immunity is both difficult to apply and contrary to constitutional text and history; thus, the settlement and dismissal of this case  means the Court will not have the opportunity, at least not this Term,  to clarify its immunity jurisprudence – or, more important, to recognize the error of absolute immunity.

However, the parties’ decision to drop the case does leave in place the 8th Circuit’s decision in favor of Harrington and McGhee, which held that in this instance, the prosecutors did not have absolute immunity because the misconduct at issue occurred when the prosecutors were acting as investigators, rather than performing “prosecutorial functions.”  The press release issued by Harrington’s counsel presents an eloquent depiction of the injustices wrought by flagrant prosecutorial misconduct and the need for the Supreme Court to modify its jurisprudence so that more prosecutors will be held to account for constitutional misconduct.

 

More from

Rule of Law
U.S. Supreme Court

Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research

In Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research, the Supreme Court is considering whether a federal law that requires the FCC to establish programs making internet access more affordable is unconstitutional under the nondelegation doctrine. 
Rule of Law
January 10, 2025

TV (C-SPAN): Elizabeth Wydra on Trump Sentencing in New York Hush Money Case

C-SPAN
[embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n7g_TJRor4[/embed] Constitutional Accountability Center's Elizabeth Wydra talked about President-elect Trump's sentencing in his New York...
Rule of Law
January 14, 2025

Civil Rights-Era Abuses Could Return to the FBI Under Kash Patel | Opinion

Newsweek
With the recent start of the 119th Congress and the imminent beginning of a second Trump administration,...
By: Praveen Fernandes
Immigration and Citizenship
January 15, 2025

Birthright Citizenship 101

Thank you to our partners at UnidosUS for translating this resource into Spanish. Links to PDF versions...
Access to Justice
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates

In United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is considering whether the qui tam provision of the False Claims Act violates the Appointments...
Rule of Law
January 10, 2025

CAC (Bloomberg): CAC’s Wydra Joins Bloomberg’s Balance of Power to Discuss TikTok Supreme Court Case

Bloomberg TV