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

Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Morozov v. Field Office Director, U.S. ICE

In Morozov v. Field Office Director, U.S. ICE, the Eighth Circuit is considering whether the Due Process Clause allows the Trump administration to imprison all undocumented immigrants during deportation proceedings against them.
Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Lugo-Solet v. Mullin

In Lugot-Solet v. Mullin, the Eighth Circuit is considering whether the Due Process Clause allows the Trump administration to imprison all undocumented immigrants during deportation proceedings against them.
Rule of Law
September 16, 2026

CAC Release: Plaintiffs File Opposition Brief Explaining Why Trump’s Efforts to Evade Accountability in Domestic Emoluments Clause Suit Should Be Rejected

WASHINGTON, DC – The Constitutional Accountability Center and Gelber Schachter & Greenberg jointly filed an...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen, Gerald Greenberg
Rule of Law
September 10, 2026

September 2026 Newsletter: Protecting People’s Constitutional Rights and the Rule of Law Across the Country

This newsletter spends a lot of time on the U.S. Supreme Court, but here at CAC, we’re...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Womble v. Patel

In Womble v. Patel, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is considering whether a North Carolina prison’s failure to provide a prisoner with a hearing-aid battery violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Perlmutter v. Blanche

In Perlmutter v. Blanche, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is considering whether the President can unilaterally remove the Register of Copyrights.