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
April 1, 2026

CAC Release: Justices Skeptical of Administration’s Domicile-Driven Approach to Birthright Citizenship

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Trump v....
By: Smita Ghosh
Immigration and Citizenship
March 31, 2026

Most Americans Favor Birthright Citizenship. That Wasn’t Always True.

New York Times
Elizabeth Wydra was quoted in the New York Times discussing the history of the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship...
Immigration and Citizenship
March 30, 2026

Why the Supreme Court will get the birthright citizenship case right

National Catholic Reporter
Smita Ghosh's Slate article about Lynch v. Clarke and birthright citizenship was cited in an op-ed in the National Catholic...
Criminal Law
March 31, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Considers Availability of Habeas Relief in Mississippi Jury Race-Discrimination Case

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Pitchford v....
By: Joshua Blecher-Cohen
Civil and Human Rights
March 31, 2026

CAC Release: In Chiles, Roberts Court Continues Its Dangerous Distortion of the First Amendment

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Chiles v. Salazar, a...
By: David H. Gans, Praveen Fernandes
Corporate Accountability
----- Supreme Court -----

Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T and Verizon v. Federal Communications Commission

In Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T and Verizon v. Federal Communications Commission, the Supreme Court is considering whether the FCC’s two-stage civil-enforcement process violates the Seventh Amendment.