Also known as: absolute judicial privileges · absolute privilege
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An immunity from defamation liability that shields participants in judicial proceedings for statements made in the course of those proceedings. The protection attaches when the statement is relevant to the proceeding and encourages full disclosure without fear of suit. It remains personal to the holder and does not extend to relieve other actors from separate liability for the same harm.
South Broadcast accompanied City A police on a ride-along and urged officers to enter Holly's home without a warrant during a live broadcast. The officers' entry was protected by governmental immunity, but the station aired Holly's face and address for commercial reasons. Holly sued the station for invasion of privacy. The station cannot avoid liability by relying on the police department's immunity.
A district attorney called a witness whose testimony later proved false in a criminal trial. The defendant sued the prosecutor for damages arising from the testimony. The court dismissed the claim because the prosecutor's actions occurred in the course of judicial proceedings.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
The President ordered the dismissal of a civilian employee in the Department of the Air Force. The employee sued the former President for damages from the termination. The court held the action immune because it arose from an official presidential function.
A district attorney criticized police officers during a press conference about a criminal investigation. The officers sued for defamation. The court declined absolute judicial privilege because the statements were made outside the judicial proceeding itself.
A television station reported on the arrest of a suspect in a high-profile case. The suspect sued the station for defamation after the charges were dropped. The court found no liability because the report concerned a matter of public interest arising from official proceedings.
A senator issued a press release summarizing findings from a congressional investigation. A researcher named in the release sued for defamation. The court denied absolute judicial privilege because the newsletter was distributed outside any judicial proceeding.
No. The privilege is personal to the participant in the proceeding. A third party who repeats the statement outside the proceeding loses the protection and may face liability for the republication.
Supporting sources
No. Under the governing rule, the immunity or privilege of one party does not relieve any other party from liability for its own independent tortious conduct that contributes to the same harm.
Supporting sources
No. The privilege extends to statements made in the course of judicial or legislative proceedings when they are relevant to the matter under inquiry, including testimony given under subpoena at oversight hearings.
Supporting sources
…to forestall criticism of their official conduct. The conclusion that the Constitution affords the citizen and the press an absolute privilege for criticism of official conduct does not leave the public official without defenses against unsubstantiated opinions or deliberate misstatements. "Under our system of government,…